I learned from my peer review to include more of Carr’s point of view  more than his views of his supporting evidence. Probably to use better transitioning words.

In this Peer review, I can discuss the article with others and share what we think of the article, what we have for the thesis and what do we need to add on the summary. I can take a look of other’s summary to think about how can I improve in my summary. Also, I think we can explore more facts and details in the article when we do peer review. Lastly, I have a question regarding how many supports do we need in the summary.

From the Peer Review, I figured out that I didn’t state out the author’s thesis. So next time when I do the summary i have to explain little more about author’s thesis, so the reader can easy to know what is the chapter about. Also I have difficulty to find out which is the good thesis statement from the chapter.

Today’s work of 150 and 350 summaries have helped me get a better gauge at summarizing chapters. My partner helped me realize which parts could be cut out and which could be added. He helped me realize I had way too many run on sentences. I was able to turn those run on sentences to actual sentences. I could still use a refresher on when to end sentences. When I was reading my partners summary I realize that I hadn’t used many transition words and need to keep that in account for next time. Overall the day was a success when it came to making myself better at summarizing.

Dear Steve,

I learned that I need to plan out my summaries better. The body of the summary has been very detailed and informative according to my reviewer but the thesis was misleading. I understand now as to what the thesis should be and I will update the summary accordingly. The shorter summary was much better in the sense the the body supported the thesis with less but as detailed information as the 350-word document. No questions come to mind at this moment of writing regarding how to write summaries more effectively.

Best,                                                                                                                                                                            Patrick Wojno

Nicholas Carr explains that how technology can help human’s life a lot more easier at the beginning of chapter. Carr points out that our brain has long-term, short-term and working memory, he states our brain turn into simple signal processing units, quick shepherding information into consciousnesses and then back out again. There is experiment between reading hypertext group and reading paper document group. The result is that paper document outperformed the hypertext group. Jakob Nielsen has been studying on people online reading, he mentioned when people read on the internet, they actually don’t read anything. Carr also points out that the working memory from our brain that able to hold a very small amount of information. However, when people who work with internet, the working memory couldn’t remember anything and lost the concentration. There are many expert’s research, experiment and statics in this chapter proves Carr’s point of view.

In this chapter Nicholas Carr explains that how technology can help human’s life a lot more easier. Carr points out that our brain has long-term, short-term and working memory, he states our brain turn into simple signal processing units, quick shepherding information into consciousnesses and then back out again.Therefore, our, it means that brains change the response by using the internet. There is a research experiment from the chapter that can prove that the working memory will be effects by reading different type of documents. There is one group of people is reading hypertext and the other group of people is reading the text documents. The hypertext reader is easy to lost the topic and they couldn’t remember what they had and had not read. However, the paper document outperformed the hypertext group. As result,  people who read the text document can remember more than the hypertext one. Jakob Nielsen a long time consultant of web pages who has been studying on people online reading, he mentioned when people read on the internet, they actually don’t read anything. Carr also points out that the working memory from our brain that able to hold a very small amount of information. However, when people who browsing, scanning, and reading from the internet, the working memory couldn’t remember anything after all. There is other statics that showed the time of people who is reading on the internet, they read the words as fast as they can, but at the end of reading, on one can remember what is the article about. Also, when people do the hypertext reading, they have to use the  mouse to click for next page, after that they couldn’t remember what is topic about. There are expert’s research, experiment and statics proved Carr’s point of view.

In the chapter 7 “The Juggler’s Brain” by the author Nicholas Carr is going to tell us the internet is mind altering technology. The sensory and cognitive stimuli offered by the internet which follow the same repetitive and addictive patterns to cause change in the brain. In the article, Carr shows some ways to prove that. For example: First, the Internet’s design is addictive. Second, the Internet is a physically intense and encompassing experience to a degree we do not often realize, and the cognitive effects of the Internet are also more profound than we might realize. Third, the Internet limits our ability to think deeply and people use Internet without interface requiring constant choice. At last, people can be distraction by overload of incoming information which impedes our ability to distinguish important information.

This Chapter is titled “The Juggler’s Brain” which is fitting because Carr, in this chapter, argues that we juggle the use of our attention when using the internet. he asks “What can science tell us about the actual effects that Internet use is having on the way our minds work?” Carr uses several experiments, studies, and journals to back up his answer to this question, that the internet promotes cursory reading, hurried, and distracted thinking.

The first point Carr makes is during the use of the internet we “repeat the same or similar actions over and over again.” The second important statement he makes is that “The net provides a high-speed system for delivering responses and rewards.” These statements by themselves are just observations, but support his next idea that the long-term influence of the net is that it seizes our attention, only to scatter it.  Carr also states “The net is, by design, an interruption system, a machine geared for dividing attention.”

Carr reinforces that idea with a plethora of experts and experiment findings. Gary Small, an expert in Physiological and Neurological effects of digital media, says he’s discovered that the explosion of digital technology is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains. An experiment Small conducted showed using the internet, even only for five hours, can drastically change neurological pathways. The last point Small suggests is “Using the net as an informational medium is so intensive, when it becomes our primary mode of thought, can impede deep learning and thinking.” John Sweller, an educational psychologist, theorizes that the net influences the depth of our thinking. He elaborates on short-term and long-term memory and explains that we have a harder time forming long-term memories through media. Another experiment in 1990 showed how hypertext reading increased cognitive load by comparing reading text to reading hyperlinked-text. In a similar experiment in 2001, two Canadian scholars found that the group reading plain text routinely scored better on memory and read time than the hyperlink-text group.

In summation, Carr suggests we are rewiring our brains. Maybe in ways that are self harmful to the attention span.