So with the caveat that I am only halfway through Mark Bauerline’s book The Dumbest Generation, I have some early impressions to throw out there. While I think there is some merit to this side of the debate (much like Keen’s Cult of the Amateur) what really bothers me about this book so far is, as the title suggests, this sense that our kids are at fault. Let me put it plainly: our kids are not “dumb” nor is this generation “dumb” simply because they spend a lot of time in front of television screens and computers or because they haven’t worked out for themselves how to get smarter using the Read/Write Web. And to label them so is demeaning and smacks more of marketing than reality.
Here is a sampling of quotes that I think pretty accurately reflect the tenor of the book:
In an average young person’s online experience, the senses may be stimulated and the ego touched, but vocabulary doesn’t expand, memory doesn’t improve, analytic talents don’t develop, and erudition doesn’t ensue. (109)
For must young users, it is clear, the Web hasn’t made them better writers and readers, sharper interpreters and more discerning critics, more knowledgeable citizens and tasteful consumers. (110)
The major finding: “More than half the students failed to sort the information to clarify related material.” It graded the very communications skills Web 2.0, the Read/Write Web, supposedly instills, and “only a few test takers could accurately adapt material for a new audience.” (115)
And just whose fault is this?
If the argument is that these types of gains are not possible through the Web, that’s one thing. But, speaking for myself, I know that is not true. My interactions using social tools have definitely expanded my vocabulary, improved my memory, improved my analytic abilities, made me a more discerning critic and all the rest. And I would be that many reading this would agree to those shifts in their own experience. Networks push our thinking. Networks can push our kids’ thinking.
Bauerline guzzles the “Digital Native” metaphor and leverages it to the extreme, expressing genuine surprise that our kids aren’t able to figure this all out on their own and then, worse, blaming them for the failure when the failure is ours. It’s our own lack of context and practical skills for what is happening right now that is the failure, not just at school but at home. How many millions of parents have no clue what their kids are doing with their online time, have no ability to counsel or model for their own children the ways in which these technologies can facilitate new opportunities for learning? How many tens of thousands of educators?
And that really is the time challenge that we have, not so much the lack of time in the day to get our brains around this but the time it’s going to take for adults to get on some sort of more than equal footing with our kids in their uses of these technologies. We’ve always known more, been able to do more, been “smarter.” In these contexts, however, we’re not smarter any longer at a time when our kids really need us to be.
We’re the dummies, not our kids.
If Clay Shirky is right, and all us baby boomers are carrying around a boatload of “cognitive surplus“, we better start unleashing it sooner rather than later.
(Photo “Bored” by foreversouls.)
It bothers me that we make such generational assumptions. I’m even tired of the “Digital Native/Digital Immigrant” nomenclature. Just because someone grew up with the technology does not automatically mean that they know how to use it or even how it works.
We are doing a disservice to our students when we assume they know Web 2.0 tools or how to use them appropriately just because they can use Facebook.
I’m not sure if this is going to keep me away from the “The Dumbest Generation” or if I will have to read it to prove him wrong!
Like your previous comment, I too get a little bit annoyed at the lengths to which the Digital Native/Immigrant discussion is sometimes taken. You are absolutely right Will, our kids won’t know anything until we teach it to them.
Your average 12 year old can’t explain away Web 2.0, for example, in the same way that they can’t explain away the use if the imperfect subjunctive in English. They just use it.
If they are to explain it, then we need to teach them how to do it (and why).
I’m having a difficult time even thinking about reading Bauerline’s book, even though I know I should… if anything, just to be ready to defend this “generation.” If our schools weren’t teaching like they did in the 1950s, perhaps our kids could show US the way. Perhaps our adults could open their minds to what kids really should be learning, instead of preparing them for inane standardized tests that demonstrate that kids are good or bad at taking standardized tests.
Maybe Bauerline hasn’t hopped into Facebook to see the kids starting groups to help gather participants for a Relay For Life… or read any classroom blogs where kids are demonstrating their learning in new and more meaningful ways. What he HASN’T seen or encountered is staggering and shame on him for marketing his sensationalist views without truly doing any research.
Your reference to marketing is accurate, Will – what strikes me most about this, and even more in the case of Andrew Keen’s book, is the sheer ‘bad faith’ of their mutual expositions. They may well each believe the gist of the central points they make, but they stretch their argument(s) to an extent that is simply laughable for the most part.
Will,
I give you good books to read and you insist on giving knuckleheads your hard-earned money, time and publicity 🙂
Sure, the digital native/immigrant stuff is nothing more than generational self-loathing and prejudice. I’ve been writing about that since at last 2005 – http://www.districtadministration.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=360
One of the greatest problem facing education is our seeming addiction to labeling and sorting people. This always results in the needless creation of winners and losers.
Even efforts at “differentiated” instruction replaces one set of boxes in which we place children and their artificially diminished potential with a different set of boxes.
The book you’re reading blames the victim, or creates victims and then blames them.
This sort of name-calling would not allowed in a kindergarten classroom.
Extolling the wondrous potential of Web 2.0 technologies or quoting new media darlings like Shirky, Pink or Friedman are insufficient responses to problems that may only be solved by challenging some of the fundamental mythologies of education, including:
• education is a scarce resource
• measurement (testing, quizzing, ranking) is essential and good
• learning is unnatural, hard or unpleasant
• I know what you need to learn when and how
And I am reading the books you gave me. Slowly. ;0) Gary, you are absolutely correct in that this goes beyond platitudes regarding Web 2.0. And there are many. But how do we change those mythologies? And is that conversation separate from the one about Web 2.0 and the shifts it is causing?
Will,
You’ve asked a large open-ended question. My glib response is that we have to start creating what Alfie Kohn calls, “the schools our children deserve.”
That can start with actions as simple as withdrawing our own children from standardized testing and writing a note to teachers explaining that once my kid demonstrates understanding of a concept, I will sign her homework to indicate that she is finished without wasting the time necessary to solve hundreds of identical problems.
We can share books with alternative views with colleagues, friends and our children’s teachers. We can go to school board meetings and speak out.
We can teach our children to POLITELY question the educational practices to which they are subjected. “Why are you teaching me phonemes three years after I learned to read?” Seems a reasonable example of such questions.
We can advocate for universal public school choice where teachers and schools are organized around common educational philosophies. We can become more articulate advocates for our particular educational philosophies.
We can start new schools.
There are a million things we can do – some small and some large.
I agree with what everyone is saying here. We recently visited eight public high schools that were implementing one-to-one computing programs and interviewed the teachers/TFs/principals, etc. Very few staff members or administrators knew about the wealth of web 2.0 tools available to them or how to use them, nor had they received any related professional development, and they’re the lucky ones in technology-rich schools! They were more concerned with administrative software like DyKnow for managing 25 laptops in a classroom. I would argue the “dumbest generation” is not our children, but rather those who ushered in the recent era of NCLB “accountability” and over-testing. As if teachers even have time to pick up new web 2.0 tools in their repertoire of strategies. Blaming the audience is pretty insulting alright. Based on what we know about leadership, it all starts at the top. There’s no room in education for “spin.”
I agree, but I also think that the top is not enough. This is about all of us as learners. How do we reconcile these shifts in our own practice? Ultimately, that is the big question in my mind.
Does Bauerline provide any research (peer-reviewed) to support his thesis? Or his book an anecdotal response to a hot topic that anyone can write about by simply reading newspaper articles and attending public school?
Also, it’s worth noting that the RWW instills nothing–it is simply a medium. It depends on what users are bringing to it. The RWW is constructivist’s dream–we all build our knowledge and understanding by interacting and participating with one another.
While I feel it is critical to understand diverse points of view (e.g., Bauerline’s), how important is it for me to spend my cognitive load on reading this text?
Chris I think you hit the nail on the head with your 2nd paragraph (your others were good, too 🙂 ).
Web 2.0, wikis, blogging, podcasts, paper, pencils are nothing if they are not used properly. You can have a kid read a book, but if they are never taught comprehension and never have the ability to discuss and reflect on what they read, it was a waste of time. If it wasn’t for coherent thoughts, pencil and paper would have no use in society. The same with web 2.0 (etc.): It’s a way to promote ideas easily and in an engaging factor for the world to access. It’s like what a few other people have said/implied: WE are turning out to be the dumbest generation because of the wealth of tools we have set before us and the lack of attention education is paying to them.
He cites all sorts of research. But he misses the larger point that you bring up, Chris. It does depend on what the users are bringing to it and, more importantly, what the users CAN bring to it. He makes some good points that I hope to follow up on, but ultimately, he misses the larger point, I think, in order to sell books. He uses the chaotic nature of student use of the tools to cast a negative light on all of it.
“In an average young person’s online experience, the senses may be stimulated and the ego touched, but vocabulary doesn’t expand, memory doesn’t improve, analytic talents don’t develop, and erudition doesn’t ensue. (109)”
– If we dropped books, pens, paper, pencils, textbooks, etc. on students desks we could make the same comment about them. Doesn’t the teacher have to teach students how to use these things as learning tools first?
“For must young users, it is clear, the Web hasn’t made them better writers and readers, sharper interpreters and more discerning critics, more knowledgeable citizens and tasteful consumers. (110)”
– Again the same could be said for any tool used in school. In fact those tools have been around for more than 100 years longer and more than a few students have not been successful in school with them.
“The major finding: “More than half the students failed to sort the information to clarify related material.†It graded the very communications skills Web 2.0, the Read/Write Web, supposedly instills, and “only a few test takers could accurately adapt material for a new audience.†(115)”
-Again have students sort info from text or a table or some other source and you will probably have similar results if you have not taught how to use the tools effectively. How many 1:1 and other edtech rollouts have been heavy on tech and very light on teaching effective, ethical use? One of the issues with NCLB is that never has more money been spent on professional development (especially at the elementary level) and come up SO short. The one time we spend lots of time on money on training and after 6 years we have little to show for it … to me that is the greatest indictment for this failed initiative called NCLB.
Learning should be messy!
Interesting timing for your post. Its the end of the semester and I’m trying to get my head around the large numbers of failing students in my 3 online courses. Since online learning is so new, I feel like I’m experimenting and learning constantly when I develop courses.
It’s easy to say the kids are just dumb, or don’t try, or are at-risk, or don’t care, or are lazy, or can’t get past video games in their daily agenda. But thats the easy things to say. The harder thing to do is blame myself for their learning.
I know I am failing these kids because I can’t get them to pass my courses. I know a lot of online teachers are failing their students because of course development, communication mistakes, and many other reasons. We cant just call the kids dumb, we have to figure it out.
Cory, I don’t think this is your personal failure as it is a systemic lack of understanding of what’s happening. This has to be the way we do business, not just the way we take isolated courses.
I spoke to Dr. Bauerline and posted the interview on my website. It has generated quite a bit of comments. Some positive, some negative, some from kids, some from educators.
I think that ideas like his are important because they force people to look at the larger picture and to be more critical. We often are very self congratulatory, linking a blog to a blog. Marco Torres once said the most popular educational technology blog are people talking about other educational technology blogs.
Tim
El Paso
Thanks for the comment, Tim. I don’t disagree that we need to be wary of our own insular community. But I also think that Dr. Bauerline’s premise discounts to a scary degree the potential of what is happening in an effort to sell books.
re: Tim’s comment– Is it self-congratulatory to link a blog to a blog? Or is it providing others with quick links to related items… helping others to surf through the immense amount of information to find those things that interest them? that help them?
I agree that it’s important to post and discuss topics that are controversial– if we all agreed, we’d have nothing to do, think, or talk about. But I do feel that, especially with the title of his book and some of his ‘statistics,’ Bauerlein took a step over the line. And I’ll go back to what I posted about over a year ago with Mark Prensky’s work discussing how kids aren’t engaged… on top of the mutual disrespect between educators and students. I had a teacher tell me that his students should “get a life” instead of blogging. That’s just not acceptable to me… not from someone who is supposed to be encouraging and stimulating life-long learning!
I’m a school psychologist. In my many years in the schools, I know that there is often a disconnect between teachers and students. Engaged learning can happen in low tech and high tech classrooms. How? Empowered teachers set the stage for this to happen.
From what I can see, many teachers are word-based, auditory-verbal thinkers who learn through printed text and the spoken word. This is often not the case for struggling learners. I see this often at the high school level. Strong visual learners are often good in art, computers, etc. I don’t have the referenc with me, but someone wrote about this in an article, “I think in pictures, you teach in words.”.
They are talented video-gamers, but this is something that is looked down-upon by some educators, especially those who’ve never heard of Mark Prensky, James Gee, Henry Jenkins, Ben Sawyer, Kurt Squires, and others.
I’m a visual learner and at mid-life, I know that new technologies have made me “smarter”. I took my first computer programming class in 2004, and have taken a couple classes in game design. My blogs are my on-line filing cabinets, with lots of visuals to jog my mind.
Those of us who “get” technology have the responsibility of guiding our colleagues, which in turn will benefit the students. Each one – teach one – anyone?
How do we teach in pictures?
I’ve been teaching IT in business for almost a dozen years and I do believe that the students I see in front of me are getting more and more tech-literate every year. Yes, there are still those who need someone else to set up their Bebo page but they want that Bebo page. What is more interesting is what they do with these tech tools. Increasingly they are reaching out, outside of their classroom and immediate environment, into the wider world, forming attachments with people and (in many cases worthwhile) causes that would be outside their reach if it wasn’t for their tech tools. In my view, to say that students of today aren’t enriched by web2.0 (or whatever you want to call it)is doing them a disservice. It is up to us the teachers and lecturers to reach out to the students “extra-curricular” digital activities and apply / tweak them to the classroom and learning outcomes for our courses. The kids aren’t dumb. If the course content that we want / need to teach them doesn’t grab their attention through traditional means, we need to tune into a toolset that they can relate to. Hello digital media, here we come.
An after-thought. Here is a link to one of my blog posts about engaged learning:
Engaged Learning Revisited: Four Videoclips for Reflection
now i am interested in reading the book just to see what other comments i can make about it. I don’t agree with the premise that tv/games rot the brain, but the people who usually stop at that point of the argument start to sound like the “rock and roll is the devils music” crowd. To truly get mileage out of technology as a learning or communication tool we need everyone to be involved, think about pre-tv society, pre-radio?? Not saying your great gradma will be blogging tommorrow, but maybe soon?
I’m a late-comer to this discussion, but after reading several comments about how we have to teach students to use the tools, and how this is a problem with the system, I’m wondering what a systemic solution would like.
I’m sure most of us have read about amazing things that individual educators are doing with Web 2.0 tools, but I haven’t seen much system-wide reform beyond 1:1 initiatives. What would a real system-wide solution look like? I’m not talking about generalizations, but the nitty-gritty day to day details. Are we prepared to outline and propose a true Web 2.0 k12 curriculum? If we aren’t, what’s our next step?
The problem is that no one reads the Web. They skim. There’s no replacement for reading — books.
Here’s an exclusive interview with Mark that I just posted where he explains why Generation Y is so dumb — and why they don’t even care that they are:
http://tinyurl.com/5u98fy
I think this gets back to what many of us have said. Students need to have comprehension skills, etc., and it shouldn’t matter how they reach or enhance those skills. They shouldn’t be limited to one or the other. I think there is a place for books and the web. I think you could also make the point that the web and books really can’t be compared anymore. I realize there are arguments against that statement, and I could make arguments on both size, but I think it’s a different discussion for a different time.
No, there isn’t a replacement for books, but the web can be an alternative in some situations.
I’m not sure I agree with Josh’s assessment. There really no evidence that kids learn on the Web. In fact, all the evidence points in the other direction. The Web is a social tool — not a learning environment. Think about how you read content on the Web. It’s mostly skimming — or reading short passages like posts and comments.
Add that to the fact that many kids are watching TV and listening to music at the same time — and you don’t get a learning environment. The Web is about browsing — moving fast.
It’s not conductive to deep learning.
If you all you do is check the Care Bears and Lone Star Beer website, no, you aren’t learning. I understand what you are saying, but I can’t stress enough that it’s all about how you use it. Books don’t do anything either if they are only used to color in and prop your table up. You have to teach kids how to use a book just like you have to teach the kid how to utilize the web for learning.
“The Web is a social tool, not a learning environment.” I’m curious as to why they have to be mutually exclusive. If I haven’t done a lot of deep learning over the years through this blog and interactions with other blogs and bloggers, what have I been doing?
@GFS3- So, kids cant learn using social tools. How do you think the 17 year old who hacked the Iphone 2 weeks after it was released figured that out? He asked his network. The point of social tools in education is collaboration. According to latest pedagogy, collaboration is learning. If there is no data to prove it yet, thats only because its too young.
The technology is just a tool, not an answer. If teachers can figure out how to use it to benefit classes then its a positive thing. If teachers say “no, its just the latest trend” and fail to figure out its relevance, thats the key term here, relevance, than it will fail. Thats on the teachers though, not the technology.
Kimberley – not much hope then for those of us who skim books too?
@John – Are you sure you meant to direct your question about skimming at me? It seems doesn’t seem to follow. I believe that skimming text is an important skill whether online or in a traditional book. My husband is an English teacher and explicitly teaches his students how to skim. If we believe a skill is important, we should help students learn it and not expect them to pick it up on their own.
@KImberley – mea culpa – my reference should have been to the comment after yours, from @GSF3. Please accept my apologies – and how ironic, given that it questions even my skimming skills 🙂
Using one kid who hacked into an iPhone as an example of an entire generation is ridiculous. Of course there are examples of brilliant people in Gen Y (although I might not include the hacker in that definition).
The point of the discussion is the generation as a whole has inadequate knowledge about culture, philosophy, history, politics and literature — and there’s lots of evidence that point to the decline in these skills.
And, yes, skimming is a nice skill for reading menus and instruction manuals. But what would be the point of skimming “David Copperfield”? The point of reading literature is to absorb the words and fall into the story. Otherwise what is the point?
The whole point of this discussion is to point out that we, as the previous generation, are just as responsible for today’s generation lacking in this knowledge. Bauerline blames the students, and while he may offer some suggestions as to how to fix it, as he did in your interview, you can’t blame today’s students for not learning what we didn’t teach them.
“The point of the discussion is the generation as a whole has inadequate knowledge about culture, philosophy, history, politics and literature — and there’s lots of evidence that point to the decline in these skills.”
And then to call them dumb.
Are we seriously blaming the kids for not living up to our standards?
@GFS3 – there is, unfortunately, often a real point in skimming a classic novel. When a young person is asked to sit an examination on ‘David Copperfield’ but has no particular interest in reading it, I’d say that this would be a perfectly rational reaction to being placed in an artificial situation by the pointless demands of the education system.
To John Connell:
So you advocate not doing required course work because a student doesn’t want to do it? Interesting. Why don’t we have the kids teach the courses then.
And, yes, Will, we are blaming Gen Y for not living up to proper educational standards. At some point, students, especially college students, need to take responsibility for their own learning.
I have to say, I find it difficult to see how we can blame kids for not living up to “proper educational standards” when we are failing at teaching them how to do so.
I find the choice of pronoun you use interesting as well. And just who are “we”?
GFS3 – you’re beginning to prove that the kids are not the dumbest generation.
I would not advocate not requiring to do course-work simply because a student doesn’t want to do it, but I would certainly advocate a student not doing course-work that isn’t necessary. If a smart kid know he can pass an external test by skimming a classic novel – and he has no particular wish to read the whole novel – why should he? You are asking kids to be irrational – another word for dumb in Americanese!
John, no need to get insulting. I just don’t understand your stance on skimming. The point of education isn’t to pass a test — it’s to learn. So if we’re not instilling that in our children — then we’re failing. And since I don’t like the direction this is heading in, I’ll bid you all farewell.
I showed the movie Two Million Minutes to 7th graders. The first comment out of one young man’s mouth=”That film calls us dumb and we are not dumb!”
MrsDurff:
Good for the 7th grader!
Did you tell the class that “Two Million Minutes” is a propaganda film funded by a group advocating a particular political opinion?
While I struggle to understand why educators value films like this, I have a hard time understanding why it would be beneficial to show to 7th graders.
If a kid has no ability to change the system they are consigned to, what possible positive result could result from seeing that film?
Come on, Gary – that cannot be a serious question! At what age do you think children ‘should’ be allowed to see ‘propaganda’ films? At what age are they capable of understanding some aspects of the place to which they are ‘consigned’ in this world? There are concepts in Two Million Minutes that can be very well understood in different ways by kids younger than 7th graders.
And rather than ‘tell’ the class they are watching a ‘propaganda film’, is it not better to acknowledge that every film in existence, every report, every article, every story, with a social, political or philosophical purpose is a propaganda piece and discuss, at whatever level is appropriate, the intent behind each of them as you come to them. That kind of political literacy is not something that can be ‘told’ to kids, or to anyone for that matter – it has to be developed over time.
Josh,
I’m for kids seeing, reading, doing all sorts of things as long as they are not dangerous or inappropriate. That said, I’ll answer your questions with a couple of others.
1) School is constrained by a finite amount of time and other resources. Why would “Two Million Minutes” be shown in any school? I can’t speak for the teacher in question here. I assume there was a curricular justification for showing the film.
2) I understand the importance of learning about reliability, validity, perspective, bias, etc.. when you consider any form of expression. However, THIS film in particular was funded by a political organization, ED in ’08. Was that disclosed to the students? Did they research or discuss the objectives of that organization or its benefactors?
You do not cheat a student by telling them about the “author” of a work. You cheat them by omitting that information from the discussion.
I’m assuming you directed that at John???
I apologize. I was responding to John Connell.
I am a later comer to this discussion and after reading “Think about how you read content on the Web. It’s mostly skimming — or reading short passages like posts and comments” and reading”The Web is about browsing — moving fast.It’s not conductive to deep learning.” Comment by Josh ,I can’t resist to read this about the web that enhance reading.
If reading is a guessing game ‘Goodman’and guiding you to extend your information how you can imagine that the web with its rich contextual and para data related to the topic you read and its dynamism can prevent the deep comprehension if the reader on the web is armed by reading strategies while reading on the screen?
Pease stop saying that because you are not ready to upgrade your reading skills when reading online these skills that you can practice not transmit to the kids you are concerned with.