This is one of the positive things about technology: it has become fast and instantaneous. It connects people places and things from all around the world. It makes the world a much smaller place. News can be viewed by anyone, anywhere.

What the speaker's saying here is that today, the audience has more power to affect the news and make change. Members of the audience can filter and select which types of news they want, comment on the news (thus creating discussions about it), and stay up to date on their technological devices. Before, the audience was limited to only what was available to them, not what they could make available. There has been a drastic shift, and the audience is in control now.

Interesting that this is in direct contrast from what we read in davidson's interview "the myth of monotasking" both are professors at top institutions Shirky at NYU and Davidson at Duke University. Just goes to show the difference in views and the difficulty in adjusting to such a rapidly changing learning environment

i agree in that when asked to focus on one thing instead of many it can be somewhat of a relief

I think the author is saying that because the distraction of social media are so available to access that it becomes second nature. We think it is okay because we do it so often it just seems normal because we are attached to our phones and social media almost always.

Students can be distracted by anything. The other students can distract them, posters around the room can distract them, anything can be a distraction. There is no way to simply shut off thoughts. Devices just offer a way to engage the part of ourselves that is not needed during the classtime, if used in the right way. I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to our teachers, but I'm saying that you need to find a balance and realize that students will be distracted no matter what.

I think this analogy really helps to put into perspective how much our screens really do impact us. I find it amazing that something can do so much damage with out being involved first hand.

We often view muliti tasking as a skill. However, in the long run it does not help us to succeed any quicker or better off, in reality it does just the opposite.

This goes back to the point of using the internet/technology for good. All of these distractions are nice for your leisure time, but can seriously hurt you in the long run when it is time to accomplish work. It makes the most sense to not allow these devices in class. The best way to comprehend a lecture is to sit there, and simply listen.

I always thought going on laptops or cell phones was a major distraction for the person using them but I never even thought about how this could also affect other students and their ability to focus and learn as well. The author brings up a very good point by saying this and brings to light another perspective of how the Internet isn't just a distraction for the person surfing it at the time.

I think this is really interesting. In my own experience, I can't work or study efficiently when I have my phone out because I get distracted with all the alerts and notifications. However in the "Myth of Monotasking" they mention how it's good to "refresh" your mind. They also mention that people who check Facebook and other social media platforms still work efficiently.

Many people look at multi tasking as a solution, as a way to get more things done quickly. It may not be effective though because if you're doing many things at once you aren't fully focusing and you're not putting in your best work.

Some people have to multitask to be able to focus like watching tv or listening to music while doing homework

I definitely agree that social media causes a problem while you are trying to get work done. I probably shouldn't say it but it definitely does for me. Every time I hear my phone buzz or see the screen light up it's like an instinct I have to go and check it. This is bad because I end up forgetting what I was just learning and it takes me even longer than it should to get my homework done, which in the end stresses me out even more.

Nowadays everyone always has their heads down looking at their cell phone. We are constantly looking for an updated news feed on social media sites. The author is right when he says students try to pay attention but have various other influences streaming through our heads. It is sad because it is what our society has turned into; constantly wondering what Kim Kardashian will post next. My generation has made social media (twitter, instagram) more important than learning in the classroom.

Multitasking is rarely ever a good idea. Rather, getting one task done at a time and then moving on to another is a better idea. The author makes a great point when saying that people think multi-tasking will get things done quicker, but that isn't true. I think multi-tasking slows a person down and creates procrastination.

The connection with second hand smoke, I thought was genius way to connect the two. It is fascinating that one computer could do so much harm, even to people who are not using it

I don't know whether I think this is a good point or whether I am just sadden by it. Is that really what our youth is struggling with?

I never would have thought that this could be something biological. I just assumed that it was because the youth that is growing up today is growing up with technology. Is it more stimulating to those kids than adults? Or is it just because adults have lived longer without technology than we have?

I definitely agree with the writer's point here. It can be extremely distracting when you are trying to get work done, but someone posts something that you get a notification about. What can be worse is when you are tagged in the post because then you just focus on you and the post. Trying to go back and doing your work after that can be difficult because sometimes you forget where you were in your thought process.

I have heard people say before that multi tasking is basically doing a bunch of activities half fast instead of doing one activity the whole way through

It's funny that society thinks it is a skill to be a multi tasker, yet we have known for so long that it doesn't work well

I think it was easier for him to allow technology in the classroom when it was first coming out because many students probably did not have it. This caused less distractions

The author is saying that once one student becomes distracted, others become distracted too. The domino effect is put into play here.

What the author is saying here is that the success of these software programs could potentially be useful in creating a distraction-free classroom. But, still, the teacher would lose against some of the industries top professionals like Facebook and Apple. They would win against the teacher in a fight to keep the students' attention.

Why does this occur?

What the author is saying here is that while technology is beneficial in a lot of ways, it is also harmful. It can be difficult to remain focused while using a laptop, tablet, or phone because of easy access to other things.

I think this is a perfect explanation as to why people are constantly on their phones; the desire to remain informed and share information has greatly increased because of how easy it is to do on a mobile device. It has to do with the constant stream of information that is so alluring and sometimes, irresistible.

pretty amazing how social media has to a certain extent given a voice to those who have not had one in the past. no one would listen to the students who were fifteen to seventeen years old without them coming together through social media

I think an argument can be made for both sides. Ultimately each individual has to learn about what works for them and act accordingly. Given the opportunity to do so it might be beneficial for students to learn what works for them and let the teacher know what they feel comfortable with.

With the power of the Internet it may become overwhelming with the amount of people one could reach out to. I think the author is trying to suggest that one find an audience they feel comfortable with and network from there, rather than go overboard and make all the connections that software will suggest, because then it will be too many and not enough who are part of the circle you are trying to network into. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems as if he is saying to only network in your particular community, making sure the audience is who you want to reach out to so that what you are doing is worthwhile.

Participating is so important regardless of what you have to say from the start. The only way you are going to become part of a group is by putting yourself out there and joining in conversation. The same is true for an online community. Your presence must be known.

Again, I like his use of the idea that there is more to everything, social media literacy especially. These are not just 5 singular ideas or suggestions. Success only happens if they are all assessed together and effort is put into each aspect.

I really like this opening. The author really makes you think about all the other factors that go into being social media savvy. It takes a lot more than just the ability to click "post" - it takes a lot of planning, research, attention to detail, effort, and energy.

I think this passage really hits the point about how crap detection and attention are so similar. Paying attention online is about controlling the flow! i.e. having good filters, such as Twitter lists and finely tuned RSS readers like Feedly. But controlling the "flow" of information also means staying on the lookout for hoaxes and crap.

I don't really understand this point because how can you trust someone if you don't know them? I understand that you can still trust someone to consult your work if you do not know them personally, but you should know OF them and I think without this important piece, it's like saying we should trust strangers.

It's amazing to think that at the press of a button on either your hand-held cell phone or laptop, that a post/picture/status/video/etc. can be viewed by millions in a matter of seconds. The internet is obviously an amazing discovery, but you must be careful with it.

Our generation as a whole does not come to terms with the importance of 'attention'. Attention also correlates with not being able to get priorities in check. Many people today find it more important to stare blankly at their phone instead of listening to a lecture in class. "History repeats itself because nobody was listening the first time" -Unknown.

I think this shows how different students have varying multitasking abilities. It's important to note that there is no way to say "multitasking is bad" or "multitasking is good" because it is strictly individual. Social media provides numerous new ways to multitask; one can tweet while walking down the street, or take videos of everything they do while they do it for their Snapchat story. I think it's impossible in this day and age to not multitask. I don't think that means that one can't focus on one thing more than other, even if they are doing multiple things. For example, I'm listening to music now but I'm focused more on typing than the music.

People all over the world have access to the internet in so many different ways. Whether they participate in social media, run their own blogs or comment on articles, the internet allows everyone to interact and express their own views and ideas. Though as the last sentence of this quote reads; not all forms of participation are beneficial to the participant or others. Meaning that with all of this participation brings less accurate information, and that could cause a problem in the future.

I totally agree that attention is a main driving force for people. Attention is what makes a person do what they have to do every day. For example going to school or work requires a person to stay focused and be attentive. When we loose out attention, we loose our drive and focus from what is important.

what was the way of learning before multiple choice testing? was it just essays and discussion? All we have really known is multiple choice testing... at least in larger standardized tests.

has this always been the case? We often hear about how our attention spans are shortening due to the digital era and the relevance of technology/social media. I'd like to see if there are any studies on attention span from before digital era until now

Hard for me to compare these to texting and driving i'd like to pose the question of voluntary vs. involuntary distractions? of course heartburn/ divorce is voluntary to a certain extent but not as voluntary as deciding to text/email while driving

Would be interested to see if they made an experiment on this specifically, I am somewhat skeptical as to whether this would truly help the pilot

I have found this to be true...

patterns are boring :)

Paying attention seems constraining and limiting, in these terms.

It's important to be aware of how we work and the most effective way to get something done. It's good to know your personal habits to make them work for your needs.

This is interesting because you would think that people who are using social media at work were much less productive because of all the distractions. However, I don't think using social media at work frequently should be encouraged. I would be interested to learn more about why this is.

Would having an online version of the book make reading a book easier for the students?

I think texting while driving is more dangerous and distracting because a person has to be looking down at their phone to text instead of on the road.

Would a student be more likely to read the book if was able to be read online?

Would a student be more likely to read the book if was able to be read online?