The University of Google: Education in the (Post) Information Age

Citation

Mason, D. (2010), "The University of Google: Education in the (Post) Information Age", The Electronic Library, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 348-350. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011033729

This book is the summation of one view of how higher education should respond to the opportunities and challenges of Internet technologies. Its main thesis is that the way that technology is being applied to higher education and the technological mindset it engenders is eroding traditional university values. The author warns that the uncontrolled application of IT carries with it the danger of destroying the university's most valuable asset, the face to face interaction between teacher and student.

The book espouses a sociologist's view of technology and suffers the same disconnect that a technologist's view of sociology would have. The author takes the best of university life and compares it with the worst of technology‐mediated learning. The result is an unrealistic comparison of two very different things. The view of university life really doesn't take into account the economic and social reality of universities today, and is to a certain extent describing ideals that probably can not be achieved today, and in fact were never achieved in the past.

Much of the book dwells on the worst aspects of educational technology, and cites multiple instances where the technology has been applied without forethought, where ill‐conceived attempts to automate student services have in fact created severe problems. There is no doubt that technology can be misapplied, and has been misapplied, but the fact that it can make things worse is not evidence for the book's thesis that technology will necessarily make things worse.

Information technology is a fact of life and it is having an increasing impact on society in general and the lives of students in particular. Students and young people are adopting the new technologies with enthusiasm, and those coming into the higher education system regard instant access as their birthright. The universities will have to change to meet the expectations of this cohort, or risk being seen as irrelevant.

Whether the university system should go online or not, and how long it will take and, what sort of structure should be created to take advantage of distance learning technology remains to be seen. However, what is clear is that technology driven change is coming, and coming soon. Universities around the world are experimenting tentatively with the new way of doing things and many have tried and failed. But this is the result of unfamiliarity and a rapidly changing technology, not due to some fundamental flaw in the concept.

Universities are about many things: socialisation, cultural transmission, personal growth and more, as well as about the transfer of knowledge. To an extent the author is right in saying that educational technology does not address the humanistic aspects of university life, but this does not mean that it cannot. Simpleminded attempts to substitute technology for content delivery will never replace the rich cultural offerings of a traditional university, but it does have a place – not least because the customer is demanding it. When seeking information, the modern teenager's first instinct is to check their cell phone and then the Internet. Where else would they go for information?

The old technology of learning institutions – the library, the lecture halls, the tutorial rooms, the social division between staff and students, and the expectation of synchronicity – are due for a shake up. The reality is that students do not think of information the way their parents did. Information is something that is and should be available on demand from any location 24 hours a day. Students think of Google and Wikipedia as the natural source of information. The author deplores this behaviour and sees it as a reflection of lack of care, lack of interest on the part of students. She correctly points out that the quality of learning is compromised by this, and that if unchecked, students will grow up with a distorted view of the world, that knowledge has to be mediated by qualified gatekeepers and not just siphoned out of an undifferentiated mass of opinion, advertising and misinformation.

However the ideas put forward in the book, that students should therefore be prevented from using Google, that they should be marched into the library and made to attend lectures, just will not work. Any librarian will tell you that information is used in direct proportion to its ease of access. Students will use the new technology because it better suits their mode of living. They expect to find everything online, and instantly available. For the average student, if a journal is not available online it does not exist. In the tussle between student expectations and lecturer aspirations there will only be one outcome. The easiest route to information will win. Therefore rather than trying to stem the online tide, universities will have to find ways to channel it, to adapt to the torrent of information now available.

This book's view is unrealistic and unworkable. The author's conclusions reflect a world view that that is rapidly becoming an anachronism.