Thinking first versus googling first: Preferences and consequences.

Giebl, Saskia; Mena, Stefany; Sandberg, Riley; Bjork, Elizabeth Ligon; Bjork, Robert A.

doi:10.1037/mac0000072

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this efficiency is not always beneficial. Recent research suggests that thinking about the answer to a question before using Google to obtain the answer leads to better retention of the answer in adults (Giebl et al., 2022). Given that children in this study believed that Google could more quickly answer questions, and they may see this as a benefit of using Google, it may be worthwhile to create educational interventions that encourage children to think before they type.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does Google get its information?: Children's judgements about Google search

Girouard‐Hallam,

Danovitch

2024

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children frequently use Google to answer their questions, yet what they think about Google's capacity and limitations is unclear. This study explores children's beliefs about Google's capacity to answer questions. American children ages 9 and 10 (n = 44; 18 boys and 26 girls) viewed factual questions directed towards Google or a person. After viewing each question, they reported their confidence in the informant's accuracy, the time it would take the informant to obtain the answer and how the informant would obtain the answer. Finally, they generated questions that the internet would be capable or incapable of answering. Children believed Google would be more accurate and faster than a person at answering questions. Children consistently generated appropriate questions that the internet would be good at answering, but they sometimes struggled to generate questions that the internet would not be good at answering. Implications for children's learning are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does Google get its information?: Children's judgements about Google search

Girouard‐Hallam,

Danovitch

2024

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Flanagin and Lew (2023) found that people overestimate their task performance if web-based information is available (see also Fisher & Oppenheimer, 2021). Another series of studies suggests that thinking about trivia questions before searching for the answers online improves later recall than immediately searching the Internet (Giebl et al, 2022). Importantly, reliance on Internet sources further increases the probability that one will rely on the Internet (Storm et al, 2017).…”

Section: Offloading In Everyday Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization

Skulmowski

2023

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review is aimed at synthesizing current findings concerning technology-based cognitive offloading and the associated effects on learning and memory. While cognitive externalization (i.e., using the environment to outsource mental computation) is a highly useful technique in various problem-solving tasks, a growing body of research suggests that the offloading of information into the environment (and digital storage in particular) can have negative effects on learning. Based on this review, a model of offloading with cognitive load at its core is developed to summarize when learners offload information. A high intrinsic cognitive load (i.e., a high difficulty), a high extraneous load (i.e., unnecessary design elements), and a low perceived or actual working memory capacity trigger offloading. Crucially, the value attributed to information also affects whether information is externalized. In this model, extraneous cognitive load in the design of technology-enhanced learning acts as a triple barrier: (1) It prevents information from entering working memory, (2) it inhibits information being stored in long-term memory, and (3) it can prevent learners from externalizing information using technology. As a result, in many instances, only the gist of information (or its location) is retained, while learners often gain the illusion of having memorized that information. Furthermore, offloading substantially increases the risk of memory manipulation, potentially posing a societal problem. Consequently, educational approaches should maximize the meaningfulness of the residual information that is often retained in the form of “biological pointers.” In addition, current issues surrounding the use of generative artificial intelligence pertaining to externalization are discussed.

show abstract

“…While the nature of the processes underlying the benefits of pretesting is still being debated, it is fairly widely agreed that a major reason for this benefit is that pretesting leads students to think more deeply and critically about the information that was pretested when it is later encountered during the presentation of the tobe-learned material, resulting in a more elaborate encoding of such material. For example, even for questions to which students do not already know the correct answer, if they are required to search their memories for possible answers to such questions before being allowed to search for them on the Internet, they will remember the found answers better than if they had been allowed to search for them immediately (Giebl et al, 2021(Giebl et al, , 2022. Additionally, pretests can lead to a reduction in mind wandering (Pan et al, 2020) and enhance students' capacity to maintain focus during lessons (Pan & Sana, 2021).…”

Section: When Should We Give Tests?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of Using Tests in Education as Tools for Learning—Not Just for Assessment

Murphy,

Little,

Bjork

2023

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although students tend to dislike exams, tests—broadly defined in the present commentary as opportunities to practice retrieving to-be-learned information—can function as one of the most powerful learning tools. However, tests have a variety of attributes that affect their efficacy as a learning tool. For example, tests can have high and low stakes (i.e., the proportion of a student’s grade the exam is worth), vary in frequency, cover different ranges of course content (e.g., cumulative versus non-cumulative exams), appear in many forms (e.g., multiple-choice versus short answer), and occur before or after the presentation of what is to be learned. In this commentary, we discuss how these different approaches to test design can impact the ability of tests to enhance learning and how their use as instruments of learning—not just means of assessment—can benefit long-term learning. We suggest that instructors use frequent, low-stakes, cumulative exams and a variety of test formats (e.g., cued recall, multiple-choice, and true/false) and give students exams both prior to learning and following the presentation of the to-be-learned material.

show abstract

Thinking first versus googling first: Preferences and consequences.

Cited by 4 publications

References 51 publications

How does Google get its information?: Children's judgements about Google search

How does Google get its information?: Children's judgements about Google search

The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization

The Value of Using Tests in Education as Tools for Learning—Not Just for Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About