The instrumental approach
to modern technology advocates that technology is a neutral tool which
 |
| Honda automobile plant |
 |
| procrastination |
The internet can be helpful,
but it isn’t always beneficial. When
tasks are boring or seem too difficult, people can find themselves engaging in problematic
internet use. Problematic internet use,
also called cyberslacking or cyberloafing, is defined as using the Internet to
distract yourself from certain tasks (Thatcher et al., 2008). It can lead to procrastination—avoiding a
task by delaying the start or completion of a task (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001). There may be certain brain chemistry involved
in this process. Dopamine, a
neurotransmitter, is associated with certain “seeking” behaviors like searching
for information online, whether it’s related to a task or just for
entertainment (Weinschenk, 2009).
People also seek a social
connection by chatting online instead of in person, or seek entertainment by
playing games online like Words with Friends or World of Warcraft. Using the Internet can lead to what’s called a flow experience, or getting engrossed or absorbed in a task (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). A problem arises
when that task isn’t related to your job or homework. Experiences of flow on the Internet are
relatively common, especially when instant messaging (chatting online) or
playing online games. Surfing the
internet leads to these flow states because the search or game is under the user’s
control, it provides immediate feedback, and it’s interactive.
 |
| "flow" |
All of this information provides
support for the substantive viewpoint, Feenberg’s (1991) preferred viewpoint. According to the substantive viewpoint, technology
is not neutral, and it is inherently value-laden. Technology may be designed as a neutral tool, but it can negatively impact people. It could hinder focus or concentration, could
reduce productivity at work, and could negatively impact academic success.
This is a timely issue. Many children are growing up surrounded by
TV, video games, cell phones, and computers.
If nothing is done, children will continue to become habituated to
frequent distractions and will be less able to focus, which could lead to
lowered academic success (Richtel, 2010).
Academic success is associated with later success at work, so there
could be longitudinal consequences. If internet use that isn’t work-related
surpasses 12% of the work day, overall productivity suffers (Coker, 2011). Children are exposed to technology at a very
early age, and continue to interact with it throughout their childhood. Researchers have found that academic
self-efficacy is negatively correlated with problematic internet use (Odaci,
2011). Students who don’t feel effectual
in their schoolwork tend to engage in more distracting and problematic internet
use.
 |
| technology in the classroom |
This leads to a conundrum. Technology and internet access could be
beneficial, but could be detrimental. Many
high school and college students have internet access at home and on school
campus. There is an ongoing debate about
whether or not to bring technology into the classroom. Many instructors do, thinking if you can’t
beat ‘em, join ‘em. But others don’t. As Alan Eaton said, “When rock ‘n’ roll came
about, we didn’t start using it in classrooms like we’re doing with technology”
(Richtel, 2010, p. 9).
We should ask the question,
Does technology aid students’ learning, or does it impair their concentration and
focus? If technology use has more
positives than negatives, it would be beneficial to continue incorporating
technology into the classroom. Likewise,
we should increase efforts to distribute technology more evenly across school
districts so all districts have access to technology. If the use of technology in the classroom shows
more negatives than positives, we should communicate to children the importance
of face-to-face interactions and reduce the amount of time they spend with
electronics. Parents and teachers should
engage children and students in activities that aren’t reliant on technology so
they don’t become dependent upon it. Ultimately,
technology can be beneficial, but we must be intentional about how we use it—we
need to determine exactly what the consequences are, whether they’re positive
or negative, and act accordingly.
References
Berridge, K. C.,
& Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: Hedonic
impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews, 28, 309-369. Retrieved from http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/research&labs/berridge/publications/Berridge&RobinsonBrResRev1998.pdf
Coker, B. L. S.
(2011). Freedom to surf: The positive effects of workplace Internet leisure
browsing. New Technology, Work, and
Employment, 26(3), 238-247. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2011.00272.x
Csikszentmihalyi, M.,
& LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(5), 815-822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815
Feenberg, A. (1991).
Critical theory of technology. Critical Theory
of Technology (pp. 2-20). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lavoie, J., &
Pychyl, T. A. (2001). Cyber-slacking and the procrastination superhighway: A
web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4),
431-444. doi:10.1177/089443930101900403
Odaci, H. (2011).
Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination as predictors of
problematic internet use in university students. Computers and Education, 57, 1109-1113. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.005
Richtel, T. (2010,
November 21). Growing up digital, wired for distraction. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?pagewanted=all
Thatcher, A.,
Wretschko, G., & Fridjhon, P. (2008). Online flow experiences, problematic
Internet use and Internet procrastination. Computers
in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2236-2254. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.008
