A few months back, I was chatting with an enthusiastic, web surfer about the state of education and how different it is today compared to the many moons ago when I was in school. I nearly flipped out though when I heard the comment:
Kids today don’t need to learn ….. they can just Google it!”
At first I thought I was hearing things, so I questioned for clarification. Initially my problem was with the little words – ‘need to’ and ‘can’. While I accept the sentence ‘Kids today don’t learn ….. they just Google it’ as being an oft times true if not sad state of affairs, I just couldn’t handle that this computer guru, a parent of young school children, was seriously thinking that googling information could replace learning!!
How could a parent today think like this? Why would you bother sending your children to school at all if this was your working assumption about the daily learning process? And more than anything else, is this kind of statement a reflection of the paucity of information we, the gurus of education, are sharing with the parents of the children we teach?
I admit to being stymied by this comment and it’s taken me a while to get a handle on how to respond. But, after some heated discussion and even more heated thinking, I’ve come up with the following thoughts, thoughts which strangely have tumbled out as lots of questions:
- Try replacing the word ‘Google’ with ‘look it up in books’. Books came before Google. Were books the panacea of all learning? Did the students of yesteryear ‘learn’ just by reading about it?
- Do answers to questions found on Google put knowledge into your head? Is the sum total of our knowledge just facts picked up and stuck together? If facts are just picked up at random by googling answers to questions, how does one ‘learn’ to associate facts in categories, let alone hierarchical categories?
- If we are to just rely on Google, how does a student know the direction in which to search? Does he guess? Does he randomly shift from one topic to another?
- How is it possible to know when enough is enough? How can a student judge or measure the depth of information retrieved on a Google search? How can it be determined whether one or twenty websites are sufficient to ensure all aspects of a subject or topic are learned?
- What about the authenticity or validity of websites googled? Can just googling guarantee the currency and accuracy of information? Are all websites snared on Google legitimate and reliable?
- Surely the very act of googling is dependent on prior knowledge. Isn’t knowledge a sum of information learned? Doesn’t that mean that learning is inherent to being able to ‘Google’?
- In the model of 21st Century learning, students are active learners. Is the process of running a Google search an active or passive activity? If, as suggested, kids no longer need to learn but can Google it, are they being active learners?
- Lots of information is retrieved from a Google search. It doesn’t necessarily provide explanation to an inquiring mind. How will this information be internalized?
- Are our minds just empty vessels waiting to be filled with facts? Has the sci-fi in which information is downloaded to our brains become a reality?
- Are a mass of facts equivalent to knowledge ….. to learning? Indeed, what is the meaning of learning and how best is learning achieved?!
Clearly Google has much to offer. It enables ready access to a massive store of information. But it is ….. just that. Information.
Students cannot be expected to make sense of all the information at their fingertips without the structure, guidance and expert advice offered by educators in our schools The completion of highly structured activities and exercises designed by teachers enable students to analyse and synthesize information retrieved by Google searches. This process, which ensures that facts are internalized, is the crux of education. It is our skilled teachers who provide a framework for learning. It is they who design and present learning experiences in logical sequences, ensuring that learning is achieved in a hierarchical order. Contriving opportunities for students to discuss, manipulate, experiment and explore sourced facts creates an environment conducive to learning. Providing instruction and direction, as well as inspiring in our students the joy of learning, is a major role of our teachers.
So what is the meaning of learning and how best is learning achieved?
Learning is the acquisition of knowledge and skill. Just knowing facts does not enable our doctors to perform intricate heart operations or develop new vaccines, nor does it enable our engineers to construct bridges, nor our architects to design buildings. Structured learning within the framework provided by our schools is the best way learning can be achieved.
NOTE: An adapted version of this post was subsequently published in Connections, a Newsletter for School Library Staff (Issue 78, 2011)
Hi,
Well done! This is fantastic. I want to post this on the blog Bright Ideas (slav.global2.vic.edu.au) as a ‘worth reading’ mention if that is ok with you.
Kind regards,
Rachel
Bright Ideas coordinator
Thanks so much for your kind words Rachel. By all means, feel free to post on Bright Ideas.
Bev
The confusion in this parent’s mind is between knowing stuff and doing stuff.
Marc Prensky has a great way of characterising this using the concept of verbs and nouns. See:
http://www.marcprensky.com/blog/archives/000066.html
And a discussion with Stephen Heppell – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wrMEdTs51M
This links nicely to your point about books. So perhaps if ‘googling’ is now a verb, we could campaign to give new meaning to ‘booking’?
Thanks for sharing Marc Pensky’s thoughts. I’d not really thought about the concept of nouns and verbs and its application to evolving technologies in the classroom. Much food for thought!
Great post Bev, and spot on reminds me of a tweet conversation I had the other day, when someone replied to ‘why bother when the students can just Google it.’ To which I responded: ‘Google is the beginning not the end.’ Your comments here reinforce this message & one I think more teachers & parents need to heed. Students will need less of how much you know. & more if how well can you find. I loved the comment from Will Richardson the other day when he said that with 16,000 followers on twitter, he doesn’t need to Google as much anymore..
Yes indeed! Your point is well made here – Google is the beginning not the end. What happens to information gleaned by our student from Google searches is important for educators to consider when designing assignments or assessment projects. Thanks for your contribution to my thinking on this topic.
My rationale about schools and learning has always been that school teaches you how to learn rather than teaches you actual facts. Information comes and goes from our minds. It’s how you internalize information received that is important.
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion Maurie. I think your words have very succinctly summed up my thoughts!
[…] 7th, 2011 by Rachel Bev Novak’s recent post ‘10 reasons why Google can’t replace learning!’ on her blog NovaNews is an impassioned reminder of the role of educators and the role of ICT […]
Bev, I just saw your post. Google has worlds of good (I was just writing about Google Chrome on the QuickThought blog today http://www.quicklessons.com/blog/2011/06/chrome-sweet-chrome/). (Do check out the video link there, about the role of the auto-completer behind the Google search…funny!) In fact, I’m such a fan of Google that one of my favorite personal photos is one I grabbed a lady from the street to take of me in front of the Google building. But no, Google is for instant fact-finding and to supplement extensive researching for larger projects in context, not to REPLACE anything.
I do get concerned about today’s generations and the online experience replacing delving into real books. The experience is just not the same. And “school,” whether grade school, graduate level or corporate classrooms, of course provides essential collaborative and socialization elements of how to work with other people to problem-solve and achieve.
Yesterday I had shared with an eLearning colleague a recent Doonesbury comic poking fun at just this topic: http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2011/06/26. I hope you and your readers will be able to access and get a laugh.
Anyway, really enjoying your blog. Diverse topics that resonate! Thank you!
Ann
Thanks so much for the comments Ann and also for the interesting links to both the video on QuickThoughtsblog and the Doonesbury cartoon.
I too marvel at the wonders of Google and am in awe of some of the developments they give to us all. Very impressive. It’s good to know though that others also worry about it being a ‘solve it all’ kind of tool.
So glad you are enjoying my blog. Looking forward to staying in contact!
Bev
I know I’m months late to this but I think this is another really good reason not to rely on Google – it ‘decides’ to some extent what information it gives you. The TED talk by Eli Pariser called Beware online “filter bubbles” was a huge and concerning eye-opener for me.
Thanks for highlighting Eli Pariser’s TED Talk. The issue of information being filtered when we run searches is very serious and is one that is not often considered. That filtering occurs without the user’s knowledge may well belie the value of the search