Google Effect
During this age when businesses, schools, and medical facilities are undertaking technology transfer of paper records and data onto digital storage, we are now seeing the same transfer happening in the classroom with students memory storage. In this information-age, technology is reshaping the composition classroom. Students arrive fully connected to their electronic devices and it is often difficult to get them to un-plug and participate in class. While this intense draw to electronics and information could be viewed as a pedagogical tool for engaging this tech-savvy generation, technology used as external memory storage can become a barrier to transfer. Studies have found that the accessibility of knowledge through technology, and aides for storing memory, makes students less likely to rely on, use, and develop their own memory. Following four concurrent studies testing the effects of internet access on student memory, researchers Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner found “that believing that one won’t have access to the information in the future enhances memory for the information itself, whereas believing the information was saved externally enhances memory for the fact that the information could be accessed, at least in general” (777). These researchers named this phenomenon the "Google Effect" and concluded that “people forget items they think will be available externally and remember items they think will not be available” (778). In other words, when students believe that they will be able to find the information later online, or saved on digital devices, they are less likely to remember the information itself, but instead remember cues for accessing external information (Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner 778). This is concerning because in learning our aim is to take information stored in long-term memory and bring it into working memory as a means of engaging prior knowledge in a conversation with new knowledge and/or contexts. If students do not continue to store knowledge internally, it could become more challenging for them to bring new knowledge into working memory for synthesis, sorting, and comparison.
As the Google effect shows, transfer in the digital age shifts from dependence on internal retrieval cues to dependence on external retrieval cues. While there is seemingly little difference in the two, external retrieval accesses digital stores of knowledge (such as a website) instead of a specific, connected memory. This is problematic because traditionally long-term memory retrieval brought a specific memory into working memory for remaking and transfer. Now, external retrieval accesses large domains of digitally stored knowledge that one will have to sift through within the constrictions of working memory. Those limitations force the learner to attempt to search through vast amounts of information for key ideas within the limited capacity of working memory. This process can make learning and transfer more lengthy and complicated to navigate. Over time as more and more retrieval cues are stored in long-term memory it could also become more difficult to make connections through cues of association. Schwartz reports, "without memorizing some information, it’s harder for the brain to acquire new knowledge and skills. It takes longer for the brain to process new information, and students are less likely and slower to ask informed and perceptive questions" (np). In other words, it is easier, although not necessarily easy, to connect content with other content or conceptualizations than it is to connect content cues to a website address stored with little information or context to relate it to. Royer argues, "the critical step in the transfer process is the retrieval of a relevant skill or bit of knowledge when a particular problem is encountered" (60). This critical step in transfer is impeded by the external reliance of memory (Figure 2 shows the revised Atkinson-Shiffrin model which depicts the changes in memory due to external storage on digital drives).
As the Google effect shows, transfer in the digital age shifts from dependence on internal retrieval cues to dependence on external retrieval cues. While there is seemingly little difference in the two, external retrieval accesses digital stores of knowledge (such as a website) instead of a specific, connected memory. This is problematic because traditionally long-term memory retrieval brought a specific memory into working memory for remaking and transfer. Now, external retrieval accesses large domains of digitally stored knowledge that one will have to sift through within the constrictions of working memory. Those limitations force the learner to attempt to search through vast amounts of information for key ideas within the limited capacity of working memory. This process can make learning and transfer more lengthy and complicated to navigate. Over time as more and more retrieval cues are stored in long-term memory it could also become more difficult to make connections through cues of association. Schwartz reports, "without memorizing some information, it’s harder for the brain to acquire new knowledge and skills. It takes longer for the brain to process new information, and students are less likely and slower to ask informed and perceptive questions" (np). In other words, it is easier, although not necessarily easy, to connect content with other content or conceptualizations than it is to connect content cues to a website address stored with little information or context to relate it to. Royer argues, "the critical step in the transfer process is the retrieval of a relevant skill or bit of knowledge when a particular problem is encountered" (60). This critical step in transfer is impeded by the external reliance of memory (Figure 2 shows the revised Atkinson-Shiffrin model which depicts the changes in memory due to external storage on digital drives).
Figure 2: Atkinson-Shiffrin model updated to illustrate technological interference in transfer.
The Google effect is concerning because of the connection between working memory an knowledge domains. A study done by Hambrick and Engle found that greater domain knowledge (stored memory) and greater working memory capacity (derived from memory techniques which maximize the potential holding capacity) offered participants higher yields in comprehension and cognitive performance (376, 379). Domain knowledge and working memory act interdependently. Working memory "maintains information in an activated state through the application of controlled attention" so that knowledge may be appropriately processed and stored into knowledge domains, while knowledge domains function as a storehouse that enhances the performance of working memory" (Hambrick and Engle 377). However, if working memory is filtering out knowledge to hold retrieval cues instead, that may impact the role of domain knowledge on decision making and transfer. Specifically, we may see comprehension, synthesis, and memory decrease due to this effect. Upon her review of related transfer research, Julie Foertsch concludes "that transfer of learning rarely occurs spontaneously-- at least not in the typical laboratory experiment or classroom exercise. There are cases in which spontaneous transfer does occur, but these are almost always in situations where the problem solver has a wealth of experience in a particular field" (371). The wealth that she refers to is that which is stored in knowledge domains. Students with greater domain knowledge have increased potential for transfer, as Hambrick and Engle have found. McCutcheon supports this notion when she writes "novice writers remain limited by working memory capacity," while "rich writing-relevant knowledge bases, enable skilled writers to link developing sentences to extensive knowledge stored in long-term memory" (63-64). Studies, such as those by Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner, confirm that domain knowledge is changing from content-rich memories to process-oriented retrieval cues. Decreased content stores in knowledge domains impose new challenges for transfer.
These studies show that people are relying on the internet and computer as external memory storehouses. Roddy Roediger, a psychologist at Washington University, says the study performed by Sparrow and her colleagues is “convincing” and “There is no doubt that our strategies are shifting in learning” (Roediger as cited in Bohannon 277). This shift is creating an opportunity in the digital age to re-situate traditional conceptions of transfer on retrieval of external memory storage versus accessing internal knowledge domains. Retrieval cues, used to access external memory drives, may be tools that can be used to facilitate this new sort of technological transfer. During this time when learning and literacies are shifting, we are presented with a moment where we can choose to engage these new processes of transfer, while strengthening and trying to preserve some semblance of the old, through new pedagogy designed to keep memory-work in mind. This could be the moment when the lost art of memoria makes its way back into the classroom through updated, research-supported memory practices. Embracing memory in the classroom, can help to bring about new dimensions for transfer.
Digital Reliance
One restriction to consider is that this sort of transfer can only occur when the student remains connected to the digital drives he or she relies on. Being connected to memory drives is important for transfer. Without access to long-term (or digital memory drives), retrieval cues are fruitless and cannot call to working memory the rich knowledge and experiences which make sense of new learning. Reliance upon external memory sources can interfere with a student’s ability to understand, synthesize, and make connections among course material and prior knowledge, which are critical steps in facilitating transfer of learning. Nuero-scientific studies have coined the term “transactional memory” to describe this unique memory processing that occurs with use of technological memory storage in learning. Different from the traditional synthetic and schematic memory processing used with memory storage inside oneself, transactional memory requires students to be connected to technology at all times in order to retrieve information. This makes transfer technology-dependent and can limit the potentials for transfer in the digital age. Kimberly Lacey shares her concerns when she writes, "More and more, digital memory is replacing natural, biological memory. As a result, by relinquishing control of our biological systems to the techno-neurological swarm, we must introduce some form of control apparatus or system in order to retain access to our own memories" (164-165). The system I recommend to assist in preserving memory stores while engaging technology is to bring the art of memoria back to the composition classroom in a new, research-supported way. The Google effect positions memory in the forefront of rhetorical concerns for the digital age and asks us to reconsider pedagogy focused on facilitating transfer.
The Google effect is concerning because of the connection between working memory an knowledge domains. A study done by Hambrick and Engle found that greater domain knowledge (stored memory) and greater working memory capacity (derived from memory techniques which maximize the potential holding capacity) offered participants higher yields in comprehension and cognitive performance (376, 379). Domain knowledge and working memory act interdependently. Working memory "maintains information in an activated state through the application of controlled attention" so that knowledge may be appropriately processed and stored into knowledge domains, while knowledge domains function as a storehouse that enhances the performance of working memory" (Hambrick and Engle 377). However, if working memory is filtering out knowledge to hold retrieval cues instead, that may impact the role of domain knowledge on decision making and transfer. Specifically, we may see comprehension, synthesis, and memory decrease due to this effect. Upon her review of related transfer research, Julie Foertsch concludes "that transfer of learning rarely occurs spontaneously-- at least not in the typical laboratory experiment or classroom exercise. There are cases in which spontaneous transfer does occur, but these are almost always in situations where the problem solver has a wealth of experience in a particular field" (371). The wealth that she refers to is that which is stored in knowledge domains. Students with greater domain knowledge have increased potential for transfer, as Hambrick and Engle have found. McCutcheon supports this notion when she writes "novice writers remain limited by working memory capacity," while "rich writing-relevant knowledge bases, enable skilled writers to link developing sentences to extensive knowledge stored in long-term memory" (63-64). Studies, such as those by Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner, confirm that domain knowledge is changing from content-rich memories to process-oriented retrieval cues. Decreased content stores in knowledge domains impose new challenges for transfer.
These studies show that people are relying on the internet and computer as external memory storehouses. Roddy Roediger, a psychologist at Washington University, says the study performed by Sparrow and her colleagues is “convincing” and “There is no doubt that our strategies are shifting in learning” (Roediger as cited in Bohannon 277). This shift is creating an opportunity in the digital age to re-situate traditional conceptions of transfer on retrieval of external memory storage versus accessing internal knowledge domains. Retrieval cues, used to access external memory drives, may be tools that can be used to facilitate this new sort of technological transfer. During this time when learning and literacies are shifting, we are presented with a moment where we can choose to engage these new processes of transfer, while strengthening and trying to preserve some semblance of the old, through new pedagogy designed to keep memory-work in mind. This could be the moment when the lost art of memoria makes its way back into the classroom through updated, research-supported memory practices. Embracing memory in the classroom, can help to bring about new dimensions for transfer.
Digital Reliance
One restriction to consider is that this sort of transfer can only occur when the student remains connected to the digital drives he or she relies on. Being connected to memory drives is important for transfer. Without access to long-term (or digital memory drives), retrieval cues are fruitless and cannot call to working memory the rich knowledge and experiences which make sense of new learning. Reliance upon external memory sources can interfere with a student’s ability to understand, synthesize, and make connections among course material and prior knowledge, which are critical steps in facilitating transfer of learning. Nuero-scientific studies have coined the term “transactional memory” to describe this unique memory processing that occurs with use of technological memory storage in learning. Different from the traditional synthetic and schematic memory processing used with memory storage inside oneself, transactional memory requires students to be connected to technology at all times in order to retrieve information. This makes transfer technology-dependent and can limit the potentials for transfer in the digital age. Kimberly Lacey shares her concerns when she writes, "More and more, digital memory is replacing natural, biological memory. As a result, by relinquishing control of our biological systems to the techno-neurological swarm, we must introduce some form of control apparatus or system in order to retain access to our own memories" (164-165). The system I recommend to assist in preserving memory stores while engaging technology is to bring the art of memoria back to the composition classroom in a new, research-supported way. The Google effect positions memory in the forefront of rhetorical concerns for the digital age and asks us to reconsider pedagogy focused on facilitating transfer.