ENG 101 Effects of The Internet & Technology Hazardous to Our Brains Essay Essay Topic: Basing your essay on the ideas of the writers in the readings prov

ENG 101 Effects of The Internet & Technology Hazardous to Our Brains Essay Essay Topic:

Basing your essay on the ideas of the writers in the readings provided, answer the following question:

Are the effects of the Internet and technology hazardous to our brains?

Explain your point of view on this topic in an essay of 1200 words minimum.

You may only use the following sources for this essay:

Nicholas Carr “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

John Naughton “The Internet: Is It Changing the Way We Think?” ENG 101- Final Essay Exam
Submit Assignment
•
Due Jun 5 by 11:59pm
•
Points 100
•
Submitting a file upload
•
Available May 29 at 12am – Jun 5 at 11:59pm 8 days
Many people today talk about the dangers of the Internet. Among other ideas,
people think that the Internet is changing people’s brains and the way they
process information.
In the readings provided for this final essay, Nicholas Carr and several other
people provide their points of view on this topic.
Essay Topic:
Basing your essay on the ideas of the writers in the readings provided, answer the
following question:
Are the effects of the Internet and technology hazardous to our brains?
Explain your point of view on this topic in an essay of 1200 words minimum.
You may only use the following sources for this essay:
Nicholas Carr “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”
John Naughton “The Internet: Is It Changing the Way We Think?”
Instructions
•
Discuss this question in an essay of 1200 words. This word count does not
include your name, etc. on the first page, nor the Works Cited page. It only
includes the content of your essay.
•
Type your essay in MLA format. Review this in the video below.
•
Provide at least 4 examples with in-text citations of information from only
the readings provided in this module [no other sources allowed] in MLA
format. This is explained in this course in Module 3 Basic In-Text Citation
Examples And from The Everyday Writer pages 416-417. Screenshots are
below.
Naughton’s article includes other authors’ ideas and discussions as
subcategories. To cite these other authors you will have an in-text citation
like this:
•
(Churchwell qtd in Naughton), (Alderman qtd in Naughton), (Bullmore qtd in
Naughton), (Dyer qtd in Naughton), (Blakemore qtd in Naughton), (Goodyer
qtd in Naughton), (Wolf qtd in Naughton), (Bidisha qtd in Naughton).
These are the other authors in Naughton’s article. Whichever one or ones you
choose to cite, you will have in-text citations using the format above.
•
List your citations in MLA8 format on the last page of your essay in Works
Cited.
•
Copy and paste the following citations into your Works Cited [I’m giving
you the exact formats. Just make sure you change the font to match the rest
of the text in your essay if it’s different after you copy and paste it.]
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet Is Doing to
Our Brains”. The Atlantic, July/August
2008. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-usstupid/306868/ (Links to an external site.)
Naughton, John. “Is the Internet Changing the Way We Think?”. The
Guardian, 14 August
2010. www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/15/internet-brainneuroscience-debate (Links to an external site.)
•
The title Works Cited is centered and typed just like that. No quotation
marks, no underlining, no bold.
•
Essay must be in MLA format. If it is not MLA format, it will not be read
and will receive a score of 0.
Citation Formatting
Part of what this final exam is testing is your ability not only to discuss the
topic but also to format in-text citations and Works Cited correctly.
Your instructor is only providing you with the formatting for the citations in
Works Cited. In-text citations have been practiced all semester in discussions.
This is the last task for this semester. The semester ends June 8th.
Due Date
I can not accept anything posted after June 8th because it is the end of the
semester, and I have to submit final grades for people enrolling in summer
session.
Also, please note that there is a significant grade penalty for essays attached in
the assignment comment section, so make sure you give yourself ample time to
submit your essay Canvas.
DO NOT WAIT UNTIL ANY TIME AFTER 11:30 PM ON JUNE
8TH. CANVAS MAY BUMP YOU OUT IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL
SUFFER A GRADE REDUCTION BECAUSE YOUR ESSAY WILL NOT BE
SUBMITTED IN THE CORRECT PORTAL IN CANVAS.
If your Internet service provider is unreliable or something happens, contact
me IMMEDIATELY.
File Upload
Upload your essay in either .docx or .pdf format.
Do not upload your essay with Google Pages. I can’t open it which means you
won’t get a grade if I can’t open it.
Rubric
Final Essay
Final Essay
Criteria
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeContent &
Development–1200 word
minimum
Ratings
40.0 pts
1000-1200
words–Well
developed with
cited examples
from readings
25.0 pts
999-700 words–Needs
more development with
vague or very few
examples from readings;
examples may or may
not be cited
Pts
0.0 pts
699 words or fewer-Lacking in development-may or may not have
examples from readings;
examples may or may not
be cited
40.0 pts
Final Essay
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeUse of intext citations
8.0 pts
4 In-text
citations
correctly
formatted
in MLA8
In-text
citations
following
patterns
practiced
over the
semester
This criterion is linked to a
Learning
OutcomeProofreading/Editing
for grammar, spelling,
missing words, punctuation
8.0 pts
Mostly error
free
Evidence that
proofreading
has been done
6.0 pts
3 In-text
citations
correctly
formatted
in MLA8
Or possibly
4 in-text
citations
but only 3
of them are
correctly
formatted
4.0 pts
2 In-text
citations
correctly
formatted
in MLA8
Or possibly
4 in-text
citations
but only 2
of them are
correctly
formatted
6.0 pts
Occasional
errors but
that don’t
interfere with
essay’s
message
Typos or
occasional
dropped word
2.0 pts
1 In-text
citation
correctly
formatted
in MLA8
Or possibly
more than 1
in-text
citation, but
only 1 is
correctly
formatted
4.0 pts
Occasional errors
but which do
interfere with
message
Such as
singular/plural noun
forms; subject-verb
agreement; verb
tense; missing
words; incorrect
spelling
0.0 pts
No In-text
citations or
incorrectly
formatted [not
MLA8] or only
signal phrases
no ( ) citations
Possibly only
signal phrases
and no in-text
citations in ( ),
or in-text
citations are no
MLA8 [APA or
other
documentation
style]
0.0 pts
Frequent errors
that show little
evidence of
proofreading
High-frequency
errors that hinder
a clear
understanding of
the essay’s
message
8.0 pts
8.0 pts
Final Essay
Criteria
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeMLA
Formatting, pagination
header, MLA format date,
Professor’s name correctly
written and spelled
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeUse of
approved cited sources
Ratings
8.0 pts
Pagination
header,
identifying
information,
professor’s
name, course
title, date, essay
title–all same
font, margins all
the same
All necessary
elements are
correctly
formatted
according to
posted video
instructions
5.0 pts
Uses approved
sources
Uses only the 2
readings
provided
6.0 pts
Pagination
header,
identifying
information,
professor’s
name, course
title, date, essay
title–all same
font, margins all
the same
All necessary
elements are
correctly
formatted
according to
posted video
instructions
except professor’s
name
Pts
4.0 pts
Mostly
Correct with
some items
with errors
Most necessary
elements are
correctly
formatted
according to
posted video
instructions but
one or two may
be incorrect
3.0 pts
Uses approved & some
unapproved sources
Uses the 2 readings
provided and introduces
outside sources
0.0 pts
Not MLA
format,
inconsistent
fonts, Works
Cited not
MLA format
Several
elements are
incorrect and
therefore not
MLA format
0.0 pts
Uses unapproved sources
Uses only outside sources
and doesn’t not use readings
provided
8.0 pts
5.0 pts
Final Essay
Criteria
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeWorks
Cited page
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeHook &
Thesis
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeEssay
Organization
This criterion is linked to a
Learning
OutcomeSubmission
Deadline
Total Points: 100.0
Ratings
8.0 pts
Correct title and
citation formats
Correctly copied and
pasted citations with
uniform font type and
font size
4.0 pts
Title or citation formats
mostly correct
Citations copied and
pasted but fonts may be
different or the font size
may be different
5.0 pts
Engaging hook that doesn’t use
“I”; Clearly stated thesis that
matches essay organization
0.0 pts
Title and citations not
MLA8 format and/or
not copied correctly
Citations differ from
the ones provided for
the assignment
3.0 pts
Either hook or
thesis not clear
or uses “I”
5.0 pts
Paragraphs organized according to
a logical pattern of development
such as importance/emphatic,
chronological, or spatial or a
combination
13.0 pts
Meets submission deadline
& essay is uploaded to
Canvas in a readable format
Essay is .docx or .pdf and is
readable in Canvas grader
Pts
3.0 pts
Organizational
pattern mostly
evident
0.0 pts
No hook and/or
thesis doesn’t
relate to topic
0.0 pts
No clear
system of
organization
0.0 pts
Misses deadline or essay is unreadable or
attached
Essay is not .docx or .pdf and is unreadable;
essay is in Google Pages and is unreadable;
essay is attached and not readable in Canvas
grader
8.0 pts
5.0 pts
5.0 pts
13.0 pts
PreviousNext
The Internet: Is It Changing the Way We Think?
By John Naughton
American writer Nicholas Carr’s claim that the internet is not only shaping our lives but physically altering our brains has
sparked a lively and ongoing debate, says John Naughton.
Below, a selection of writers and experts offer their opinion
Sat 14 Aug 2010 19.05 EDT
Are our minds being altered due to our increasing reliance on search engines, social networking sites and other digital
technologies? Photograph: Chris Jackson/Getty Images
Every 50 years or so, American magazine The Atlantic lobs an intellectual grenade into our culture. In the summer of
1945, for example, it published an essay by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineer Vannevar Bush
entitled “As We May Think”. It turned out to be the blueprint for what eventually emerged as the world wide web. Two
summers ago, The Atlantic published an essay by Nicholas Carr, one of the blogosphere’s most prominent (and
thoughtful) contrarians, under the headline “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”.
“Over the past few years,” Carr wrote, “I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been
tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going – so far as I
can tell – but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading.
Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the
turns of the argument and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now
my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something
else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come
naturally has become a struggle.”
The title of the essay is misleading, because Carr’s target was not really the world’s leading search engine, but the
impact that ubiquitous, always-on networking is having on our cognitive processes. His argument was that our
deepening dependence on networking technology is indeed changing not only the way we think, but also the structure
of our brains.
Carr’s article touched a nerve and has provoked a lively, ongoing debate on the net and in print (he has now expanded it
into a book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains). This is partly because he’s an engaging writer who
has vividly articulated the unease that many adults feel about the way their modi operandi have changed in response to
ubiquitous networking. Who bothers to write down or memorize detailed information any more, for example, when
they know that Google will always retrieve it if it’s needed again? The web has become, in a way, a global prosthesis for
our collective memory.
It’s easy to dismiss Carr’s concern as just the latest episode of the moral panic that always accompanies the arrival of a
new communications technology. People fretted about printing, photography, the telephone and television in analogous
ways. It even bothered Plato, who argued that the technology of writing would destroy the art of remembering.
But just because fears recur doesn’t mean that they aren’t valid. There’s no doubt that communications technologies
shape and reshape society – just look at the impact that printing and the broadcast media have had on our world. The
question that we couldn’t answer before now was whether these technologies could also reshape us. Carr argues that
modern neuroscience, which has revealed the “plasticity” of the human brain, shows that our habitual practices can
actually change our neuronal structures. The brains of illiterate people, for example, are structurally different from
those of people who can read. So if the technology of printing – and its concomitant requirement to learn to read –
could shape human brains, then surely it’s logical to assume that our addiction to networking technology will do
something similar?
Not all neuroscientists agree with Carr and some psychologists are sceptical. Harvard’s Steven Pinker, for example, is
openly dismissive. But many commentators who accept the thrust of his argument seem not only untroubled by its farreaching implications but are positively enthusiastic about them. When the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American
Life project asked its panel of more than 370 internet experts for their reaction, 81% of them agreed with the
proposition that “people’s use of the internet has enhanced human intelligence”.
Others argue that the increasing complexity of our environment means that we need the Net as “power steering for the
mind”. We may be losing some of the capacity for contemplative concentration that was fostered by a print culture, they
say, but we’re gaining new and essential ways of working. “The trouble isn’t that we have too much information at our
fingertips,” says the futurologist Jamais Cascio, “but that our tools for managing it are still in their infancy. Worries about
‘information overload’ predate the rise of the web… and many of the technologies that Carr worries about were
developed precisely to help us get some control over a flood of data and ideas. Google isn’t the problem – it’s the
beginning of a solution.”
Sarah Churchwell, academic and critic
Is the internet changing our brains? It seems unlikely to me, but I’ll leave that question to evolutionary biologists. As a
writer, thinker, researcher and teacher, what I can attest to is that the internet is changing our habits of thinking, which
isn’t the same thing as changing our brains. The brain is like any other muscle – if you don’t stretch it, it gets both stiff
and flabby. But if you exercise it regularly, and cross-train, your brain will be flexible, quick, strong and versatile.
In one sense, the internet is analogous to a weight-training machine for the brain, as compared with the free weights
provided by libraries and books. Each method has its advantage, but used properly one works you harder. Weight
machines are directive and enabling: they encourage you to think you’ve worked hard without necessarily challenging
yourself. The internet can be the same: it often tells us what we think we know, spreading misinformation and nonsense
while it’s at it. It can substitute surface for depth, imitation for originality, and its passion for recycling would surpass the
most committed environmentalist.
In 10 years, I’ve seen students’ thinking habits change dramatically: if information is not immediately available via a
Google search, students are often stymied. But of course, what a Google search provides is not the best, wisest or most
accurate answer, but the most popular one.
But knowledge is not the same thing as information, and there is no question to my mind that the access to raw
information provided by the internet is unparalleled and democratizing. Admittance to elite private university libraries
and archives is no longer required, as they increasingly digitize their archives. We’ve all read the jeremiads that the
internet sounds the death knell of reading, but people read online constantly – we just call it surfing now. What they are
reading is changing, often for the worse; but it is also true that the internet increasingly provides a treasure trove of rare
books, documents and images, and as long as we have free access to it, then the internet can certainly be a force for
education and wisdom, and not just for lies, damned lies, and false statistics.
In the end, the medium is not the message, and the internet is just a medium, a repository and an archive. Its greatest
virtue is also its greatest weakness: it is unselective. This means that it is undiscriminating, in both senses of the word. It
is indiscriminate in its principles of inclusion: anything at all can get into it. But it also – at least so far – doesn’t
discriminate against anyone with access to it. This is changing rapidly, of course, as corporations and governments seek
to exert control over it. Knowledge may not be the same thing as power, but it is unquestionably a means to power. The
question is, will we use the internet’s power for good, or for evil? The jury is very much out. The internet itself is
disinterested: but what we use it for is not.
Sarah Churchwell is a senior lecturer in American literature and culture at the University of East Anglia
Naomi Alderman, novelist
If I were a cow, nothing much would change my brain. I might learn new locations for feeding, but I wouldn’t be able to
read an essay and decide to change the way I lived my life. But I’m not a cow, I’m a person, and therefore pretty much
everything I come into contact with can change my brain.
It’s both a strength and a weakness. We can choose to seek out brilliant thinking and be challenged and inspired by it. Or
we can find our energy sapped by an evening with a “poor me” friend, or become faintly disgusted by our own thinking if
we’ve read too many romance novels in one go. As our bodies are shaped by the food we eat, our brains are shaped by
what we put into them.
So of course, the internet is changing our brains. How could it not? It’s not surprising that we’re now more accustomed
to reading short-form pieces, to accepting a Wikipedia summary, rather than reading a whole book. The claim that we’re
now thinking less well is much more suspect. If we’ve lost something by not reading 10 books on one subject, we’ve
probably gained as much by being able to link together ideas easily from 10 different disciplines.
But since we’re not going to dismantle the world wide web any time soon, the more important question is: how should
we respond? I suspect the answer is as simple as making time for reading. No single medium will ever give our brains all
possible forms of nourishment. We may be dazzled by the flashing lights of the web, but we can still just step away.
Read a book. Sink into the world of a single person’s concentrated thoughts.
Time was when we didn’t need to be reminded to read. Well, time was when we didn’t need to be encouraged to cook.
That time’s gone. None the less, cook. And read. We can decide to change our own brains – that’s the most astonishing
thing of all.
Ed Bullmore, psychiatrist
Whether or not the internet has made a difference to how we use our brains, it has certainly begun to make a difference
to how we think about our brains. The internet is a vast and complex network of interconnected computers, hosting an
equally complex network – the web – of images, documents and data. The rapid growth of this huge, manmade,
information-processing system has been a major factor stimulating scientists to take a fresh look at the organization of
biological information-processing systems like the brain.
It turns out that the human brain and the internet have quite …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment