With the TV loud enough to hear his favorite show and positioned so he can watch, a student embarks on the task of typing his laborious research paper on his laptop that is due tomorrow. Another individual attempts the assigned textbook reading while talking to her friend on the phone. Still another runs on the treadmill, listening to her favorite artist on her iPod, while trying to study flashcards. “‘Multi-tasking’ implies performing two or more pieces of work simultaneously”, and it is a very prevalent dynamic in the lives of generation millennials today (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 39).Many young adults earnestly believe that in the academic setting and workplace environment they are able to function productively and efficiently, regardless of the diversions so prevalent in their environment. This might be due in part to the subtle persuasion by employers to accomplish the most amount of work in the least amount of time. Many people in the workforce believe that by accommodating to ever-changing technology around them, they will become more skilled and proficient at their jobs. If they fail to do this, there is apprehension they will be replaced.
However, research studies have shown this is not the case. Multi-tasking is basically the result of having to juggle various technological elements in order to complete required assignments on the job (Appelbaum & Marchionni, 2008). When an employee is incompetent or unskilled in the use of a particular tool, multi-tasking is necessary. He must continue to perform previous tasks, and yet tackle the obstacle that is hindering his progress. This pressure for productivity is “undeniable” and “has not stopped since the phenomenon first became common practice” (Appelbaum & Marchionni, 2008, p. 1323).
One research study, conducted by Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, and Chamberlin (2005), observed how technology has created an increasing problem for members of the work environment, particularly police officers. One hundred and twenty-one police officers from assorted departments were witnessed in their vehicles carrying out routine daily activities. Each activity they engaged in, such as “using a cell phone, talking, handling the radio and other objects, and writing” was recorded during the 720 minutes of their 12-hour shifts (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 39). The study revealed that 77% of the police officers multi-tasked while driving. “Specifically, 55% were seen doing at least one other task, and 11% were observed doing at least two other tasks” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 39). While the police officers could multi-task, the results showed their focused attention in a specific matter was very poor. Too much time was wasted alternating from one task to another. “Engaging in multi-tasking behavior during learning can be detrimental to subsequent performance levels” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 46). The research concluded, in an effort to achieve an ideal outcome, it is best for the human brain to concentrate on a single aspect for a sufficient amount of time before moving on to another. Negative consequences affect memorization, as information is not processed and immersed appropriately for long-term retention. Because the police officers’ jobs demands multi-tasking, their best suggestion was that “Both driving and MDT [Mobile Data Terminals] use should be mastered separately before being performed in combination” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 46). The continual assimilation of new technology being incorporated into the workforce establishes overload and creates the need for all resources to be utilized collectively. “If the attention cost of performance exceeds available resource, performance will suffer” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 47).
(Images from Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 43-44).
One book we have been assigned to read for our class is called “Digital Divide”, edited by Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation. One particular essay by Marc Presnsky entitled, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, was a source of discussion in class. Because the brain structures of many students are different than the students in generations before them, they tend to surmise entitlement to receive information and engage in multiple activities simultaneously; nevertheless, this is untrue. Simply being raised in a society where technological advances are surging does not mean the students’ brains have been completely remapped. Professor Whitworth expounded in class on how our generation is, nevertheless, proud of this “accomplishment”. Individual interviews and public speaking used to be sought-after skills. Yet, it is actually very frightening to consider the reality of these skills becoming remiss.
It is detrimental to focus our achievements on outcomes when attempting to multi-task. "When you can and are impacting outcomes, the bi-product will not be as efficient”, Whitworth explained. “It isn’t of the same quality compared to if you weren’t multi-tasking.” He was questioned by a student if quantity is better than quality. While we may be finishing more tasks, is it really worth it? If the quality of the work is not satisfactory, the endeavors may have been in vain.
Multi-tasking is a “bi-product of society”, Whitworth continued. It is an ever-present part of our culture and is how we were molded and shaped. Although we would like to think “It’s individual decisions….it’s not”.
Digital detoxification must occur with the technology we use. Although it seems to be a necessity and fundamentally infused into our workload, it must be avoided. Our best work will take place through a state of reflection and time spent away from the computer, the television, iPhone, or the stereo. While we may think that “unplugging” from these agents will waste time and be unproductive, it will actually be beneficial in the long run. It is vital to eliminate bad habits of multi-tasking now before the damage is irreversible.
Considering Bauerlein’s opinion that I am a part of the dumbest generation, I agree with his argument to some extent, yet at the same time, I disagree. Our generation is not using of our resources satisfactorily in an attempt to make substantial contributions to society. As a result, we very much indeed represent a dumb and unintelligent generation. There is so much potential in this era, but it is imperative to change our patterns of behavior, particularly in the area of multi-tasking. If we can attain such a feat, our ideas will be better received, we will ensure more creativity, and we will gain more intellectual insight. Relationships will improve by encouraging more verbal, in-person dialogue. It is a blessing, as well as a curse, that our brains have cultivated in a dissimilar way compared to generations before us. Nevertheless, we must determine how to optimally make the best use of these agents. Since we recognize our learning is acquired in bursts and chunks, we should sharpen our focus on our studies at set intervals with breaks in between. This modification will help save time and energy in the future. I personally saw positive outgrowth today when I assumed this approach. My writings were more enhanced and refined. I felt confident and assured due to self-determination and designed discipline. We must hold each other accountable and depend on one another to facilitate the quality of the information as opposed to the quantity. Technology is profitable and expedient, but as with anything, must be wisely put into practice. While our society is changing in ways we cannot control, we can still learn to master our responses. Years from now, I want to look back and be able to disprove Bauerlein's theory that we are the Dumbest Generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment