view. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14 (2), 263-274.
Description:
Given the framework that the cognitive system is designed to guide action. Consider that technology might induce substantial changes in cognition
Given the framework that the cognitive system is designed to guide action. Consider that technology might induce substantial changes in cognition
Data Presented:
Empirical work linking action and cognition
- Ground cognition in action
- Symbol Grounding
- Something outside the symbol (abstract, amodal, and arbitrary symbols of language, math, and computers) that gives the symbol meaning
- Grounding language in action
- Brains evolved for action so other systems like language are built on a base of action.
- Empirical support for grounding meaning in action
- Neuroscience- "lick" activates motor cortex for mouth, "pick" activates motor cortex for hand, and "kick" activates motor cortex for leg.
2. A general framework for cognition and action
- Basic function of the cognitive system is to select the next action.
- Cognitive processes may be distributed across members of a social group
- Cognitive processes may involve coordination between internal and external structures.
- Cognitive processes may be distributed through time so that final product reflects earlier products.
- Will the Internet "induce substantive changes in any aspect of cognition itself?"
- Will the Internet and other technologies "shift from being mere tools that aid cognition to having constitutive roles in shaping cognitive processes themselves"?
- Will investigations of e-learning and e-training "prove to be ground-breaking for the understanding of the crucial cognitive process of acquiring and using knowledge"?
- One reason for skepticism is due to evolutionary changes in cognition are appear to be incremental and not radical.
- Second reason for skepticism technology attempts to re-program the cognitive system as in it were a general-purpose computer. Rather than the human cognitive system that is based on action.
- Third reason for skepticism is that e-learning systems use few real manipulables and there is no body language as with face-to face.
- Fourth reason for skepticism temporal limits on human learning.
Glenburg's Conclusion:
- Addicted to email and Google Scholar.
- More worldwide contacts.
- Read more widely.
- Don't detect a difference
- Skepticism due to sensitivity to the principles of biological cognitive systems.
Glenberg is the kind of guy that drives me nuts, then I note that he is from Madison and I'm relieved. It's like thinking I'm nuts and then realizing that the guy writing is from Berkely. Does any more need to be said? In all honesty, I comment a little on my blog about Glenberg. His problem is that he builds upon assumptions of Human Evolution that are far from proven being barely in the realm of hypothesis and moves on from that shaky foundation. After finding out from Carr that we are getting stupider and have been sense the printing press we move into Glenberg who insists evolution is too slow (even though most modern biologists have moved on from the ancient Darwinist beliefs on the tree of life [see the recent American Scientist]and into Stephen Eliot Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium) which depict rapid change (I'm not saying any of the above is right). So, Glenberg blathers on and on. I will say it was refreshing to read Kirsh after Glenberg's drivel.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I to read this a few times and liked it less each time...thinking "and why am I reading this?" Finally, I just outlined the points so that we could discuss it in class. I will have to read you comments about him in your blog. However, I certainly agree that his foundation is "sinking sand" at best!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article...I don't know what to think. Maybe I am getting dumber. I certainly felt dumber after reading it (3 times). All I could think about is that line from "Billy Madison" where Billy gets up and starts spouting nonsense about some puppy from a story he read and the principal said "thank you Billy, I can say that we are all now dumber for having heard it." It's good to know that I'm not the only one who didn't get much from this article. I, too, kept wondering why I was reading it at all.
ReplyDelete