In the end, does it really matter?

FINAL Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein

Here's the deal. Bauerlein complained a lot in this book. So much so that I was ready to call him up since he teaches here in Atlanta. I get that he has his own agenda and opinions, but one of the basic writing principles is to combat readers from saying, "Yeah, but what about (fill in the blank)?" I got encouraged from a few pages when he wrote about the ArtShow: Youth and Community Development. Then he ruined it when he complained about the work not carrying over into the kids' attitudes about school. Come on already, Bauerlein. Stop complaining and offer some solutions.

I have shared in previous posts how conflicted I feel about technology. I still feel conflicted. After a ton of reflection, I have come up with a few more questions.

1. This is a question I have already posed, but here it is again. Are teachers part of the technology problem? I mean, the printables from the teacher handbooks are all about finding the answer to fill in the blank. Those are easier to grade. Teacher use them. 
2. Is the problem that teachers are only working for summer break? Obviously, I don't think the answer is an unequivocal, "YES!" I do, however, think there are far too many teacher who hate their jobs, and it shows in their teaching.
3. If we are to complain about technology stupefying a generation, shouldn't school systems STOP pushing edutainment software that promises to improve test scores?

Obviously, I had to do some pop culture research about how people feel in regard to technology in schools. I stumbled across this gem:

Please watch the entire video, otherwise my comments won't make sense. 

Maybe Ellen earned auto correct. But today's kids haven't earned anything. I like that Ellen equates writing to thinking. Awesomeness. Ellen gets it. When she brings up cavemen and communication, she does miss the idea of visuals and pictures as language. Cavemen had primitive iPads if you consider their hieroglyphs as app icons. They communicated for a purpose, which is explained well in this site I found called Caveman Communications. This guy gets it. He admits that he is a caveman, primitive. He also gets that getting back to basics is the way to go. (Okay, maybe he doesn't completely say that, but that is my take-away from him.) My point is that this Caveman offers some solutions.

But getting back to Ellen. She has a good point about iPads for kindergartners. If pediatricians recommend limiting screen time each day, why are schools pushing it as a significant part of the curriculum? 

As I am writing this, I can't help but think of the Pixar movie, Wall-E.  Is this where our future is headed?

About 2 minutes in, there is an incredibly brief scene of babies in bouncy seats watching the screen (Ellen's point about iPads?), becoming brainwashed with branding. Face-to-face communication does not exists. You talk to the person next to you via screen messaging. There is no human interaction. I get that Bauerlein is giving me a grown up version of Wall-E, but I need solutions. I know there is a problem. I am walking away from The Dumbest Generation even more dejected than before about the challenge of engaging students to become critical analyzers of the information they consume. 

I wonder if technology in the classroom is just this generation's hot topic. Back in my school days, administrators still used corporal punishment. Then it was class size and test scores. Every few years there is some reason for American kids performing poorly on tests. We don't keep up with the rest of the civilized world. I don't think technology in the classroom is destroying the American work ethic. History is. We teach kids that each generation more advanced than the previous. But are we really just teaching them to mindlessly follow along and accept whatever information they are fed? 

While this push back text offered plenty of stats to support a decision to utilize less technology in the classroom, I don't think it is realistic. Kids are too "plugged in" to their devices. If teachers come in and tell them they are the dumbest kids ever, teachers might as well hang it up. The trick is to find an appropriate curriculum that balances student-centered technology with learning-centered education instead of entertaining students with short sound bytes and watered down handouts. The problem is more far-reaching than Bauerlein would have his readers believe.


In the end, does Bauerlein have a point? We all know what he is telling us. He just dazzles us with enough statistics that make teachers want to nose dive from their mountains of federal mandates right into the falling test scores.

Who's the problem and where's the solution?

Intermediate Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein


A couple of disclaimers are necessary before I go any further with this blog:

1. It has come to my attention that my posts are "lengthy," so don't feel obligated to read them unless you are grading them. Read to enjoy it, not out of obligation.
2. If it hasn't been clear yet, I have not committed to a side on the debate about technology in the classroom. I think it is overused. I think kids engage less critically in their lives (in broad terms). I think there is more to the problem than technology. Make of that what you will.

Now, back to The Dumbest Generation. I am bothered by the chapter "Online Learning and Non-Learning." I feel like Bauerlein is blaming the kids for not knowing how to appropriately use technology. Kids don't know how to use anything until you teach them. I had encyclopedias in my house as a kid (I know, I'm old), but I didn't know how to correctly "use" them until I learned about plagiarism and copyright in school. So why doesn't Bauerlein place any of the blame on educators for not keeping up with the kids? Aren't we supposed to be one step ahead of those we teach? If kids don't know how to cite resources from the Internet or figure out the validity of a website, I think teachers are the problem. If kids use the Internet to connect to the world, educators should teach them to connect responsibly.

I do agree with Bauerlein and his stats about the massive amounts of money spent on technology in schools. It seems wasteful to funnel funds to technology if it isn't helping kids get "more educated." It is great to have computers and Internet in every classroom; but if you shove 40 kids into a class, does it matter how many computers you have? There is definitely a crisis in education, and I don't think technology and its use are the root of the problem.

I also wonder this: if test scores didn't change when school went "digital," doesn't that mean technology is NOT the problem? I think there are lots of problems that have NOTHING to do with technology! Aarrgghhhh! I feel like Bauerlein is so busy bashing technology in schools instead of offering any practical solutions. Maybe there is more wrong with kids and schools than the Internet.

Bauerlein brings up some valid concerns about language acquisition in the digital age. If kids only text, email, and play video games, where do they learn communication? I get that he thinks kids get the watered-down vocabulary of popular culture. But I think it is even worse. Kids are lacking in communication in general. Like basic communication. Like making an actual phone call. Or learning to interact in an interview for a job. Digital natives are lacking in some basic skills, and I think educators the part of the problem. They expect students to come to school on day one with an advanced skill set, so they neglect to teach the basics from day one. If you miss the basics in elementary school, kids are at a deficit when they hit middle and high school. Since Bauerlein wants to bash technology in schools, spread the love and bash elementary applications, too.

In order for me to commit to a side of the debate, I need more than endless statistics thrown in my face. I want to hear about possible solutions and changes. I want to hear promise and compromise. I want to know that people are doing more than sitting around complaining. I guess I am frustrated with Bauerlein because he is doing a lot of trash talk without taking off the researcher hat and spouting some solutions. If he doesn't start offering me a ray of hope in this book, I might cry.

Am I THE Problem?

Response to Lack of Leisure Reading by Ali Swank (in response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein)


Okay, so I don't completely buy into Bauerlein's theory that technology is ruining America. I don't think he is crazy either. My classmate Ali posted a response to Bauerlein that I COULD NOT ignore. Bauerlein goes to great lengths to talk about the amount of time kids spend "plugged-in" to the screens in their lives. I get how easy it is to point the finger at parents, because I was once one of those parents.


You get the true-life confessional from a mother of two, a reader and a non-reader.


My kids are polar opposites. They come from the same genetic makeup. They were raised in seemingly the exact same way. We read to our kids every night. Individually. I have read Are You My Mother? more times than should be legally allowed. I have read every Dr. Seuss book multiple times to multiple children. We have had bedtime read-alongs for their entire lives. We listen to books on CD. We are regular visitors at the public library. We have been the proud members of Zoo Atlanta and High Museum of Art on alternating years for more than a decade. With family memberships. Only one of my children has a cell phone (which I still don't feel good about it, but it came in handy when she missed the bus). My kids do NOT have televisions in their rooms. We have a family computer in the middle of the dining room. And they only have one gaming system. That they share. (It actually collects dust more than it collects points.) 


One of my kids reads everything. I mean, everything. She reads more books than I can read in a semester. She knows more about literature than most of her peers. But she hates the literary canon (which broke my heart when she refused to finish To Kill A Mockingbird because it was boring). She has finished The Hunger Games Trilogy, the entire Harry Potter series, the complete Twilight saga, and won a trophy for reading more than any other kids in her grade level one year. A trophy for reading. That could have been my sport.

Then there is my other kid. As a school system employee and (hopefully) future teacher, I am always a anxious when people ask about his reading habits. He is nine. He completed third grade with a sixth grade reading level. He HATES really doesn't like to read. I still read to him most nights (go ahead and judge me: some will say he is too old for such while others will say I should do it every night). He feels like it is a waste of time. He gets bored with it. He can't sit still to read for extended periods of time (and he doesn't have ADD), and he prefers not to listen intently while others read. When I read to him, he draws illustrations for the books. Or plays with Hot Wheels while he listens. He loves Claude Monet and knows more about hermit crabs than seemingly possible. He climbs trees and builds elaborate fortresses out of Jenga blocks and Scrabble letters. He writes amazingly complex stories (according to his teacher) with HORRIBLE grammar (as in spelling and punctuation and capitalization). But he doesn't care.

So why doesn't he like to read? Hell if I know! I did everything I thought I was supposed to do, and I still managed to mess up according to some people. If he knows a ton of useless information and writes impressive fiction, how do I get him to read? He would rather climb a tree or learn origami or fly paper airplanes from the upstairs windows. He isn't hanging out with the television and the computer all day, he has been exposed to culture, and he still won't read.  We have tried Geronimo Stilton and Goosebumps and Flat Stanley. We had the most success with Goosebumps, but most of the others don't get more than half read. 


According to Ali's post, I must be partly to blame. 

Why aren’t kids reading? Parents are not making them!–If adults started exercising their parental rights and were actually parents, maybe our youth would be well read. Parents are the ones who buy the fancy technology gadgets and allow their kids to spend countless hours in front of the TV. Parents are the ones who buy the upgraded SUVs for family vacations with the built in TVs to the headrests. Heaven forbid you would have to SPEAK to your child while on an eight hour road trip, or listen to a book on tape, or read an actual book in the car.

If children are raised in a household where reading and cultural activities are cherished and encouraged, they are more likely to pick up a book in their spare time. Instead of parents taking their kids to the latest movie, where they spend an astronomical amount on tickets and junk food, they could spend that money on a membership to a local museum for the year. If we want our kids to be cultured and well read, we have to pursue the proper channels to ensure they are.

I know that Ali is not personally attacking me. I get it. But what happens when I don't buy the fancy tech tools, force the kids to listen to books on CD in the car, partake in annual art museum memberships (and heavily utilize said membership) only to STILL have half of my kids refuse to read? I admit we do enjoy a movie now and then. But not at the expense of cultural exposure. My kids do watch television, but not as a solitary activity.

I can pinpoint when my non-reader became a non-reader. It was in kindergarten. The teacher required him to read in front of the class. And he hated it. Every minute of it. He was reluctant to read to his class for whatever reason. His first grade teacher understood that, and his reading scores increased as did his writing (both skill and enjoyment). His second grade teacher required him to read for Accelerated Reader points. He doesn't do competition, and he doesn't choose his books from a list. His third grade teacher gave up when she realized AR points meant as much to him as the federal deficit. She allowed him to choose something of interest to research. He chose Galileo and hermit crabs. And he searched the web and printed enough information to kill an entire forest. Then stood up and told the class a number of trivial facts about Galileo and hermit crabs.

He won't read a book no matter how much I bribe him. But if you ask him what GTO stands for, he knows without hesitation. Do you?

So is it my fault that he doesn't read? Who can we blame next?

Don't Hate Me Because I Read

Intermediate Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein
Since this book is about four years old, I guess the disclaimer should read "Or Don't Trust Anyone Under 34." 


So I am fairly committed to finishing this book even if I alienate the people I meet. I am trying to follow Stephen King's advice in his memoir on the craft of writing, so I have been taking this book with me whenever I anticipate the time to read. So far I have been condemned at the skating rink, the orthodontist's office, and now Starbucks. My favorite barista at Starbucks was sincerely offended, so I felt compelled to defend my choice of reading material as a line formed behind me. I now know that my barista Justin is 25 years old as of June 21 and has a masters degree in exercise science, and he hopes to work in a high school as an athletic trainer to prevent injuries in young athletes. And he is interested in older women.

Most people who know me know that I equate coffee with love, so I cannot afford to make my barista upset. Especially the barista who knows my drink order. Let's hope I can still get good coffee, but it may have to be a sacrifice in the name of research. 

At this point, I am hopeful that you have read/are reading this book, so I won't bore you with a summary (you can read that on the link above or here). I have THREE pages of notes so far, but I am planning to be as succinct as possible. But I am fired up.

Bauerlein does a great job of dazzling the reader with supported statistics about "screen time" for kids and parental lifestyles that may or may not be the reason for the excessive screen time. I will admit that I am on the fence about whether or not technology is "to blame" for kids lacking critical analysis skills or a fundamental love of reading. I do know that kids are reliant on technology. But is it as bad as Bauerlein makes it out to be? Every generation has some new convenience that the one before wasn't fortunate enough to have. Examples? Electricity, cars, telephones, supermarkets, profit sharing, automation and industrialization, assembly lines. The list is truly endless. This article shows the advances in the classrooms throughout history. It definitely helps to prove my point.

The important question for me (as a parent and hopeful future educator) is this: Is technology actually preventing progress?

Part of me says yes because these millennials or Generation M have lost the face-to-face aspect of socialization. They take everything they see and read as fact and need to be spoon fed critical interaction. They are a generation of aliterates and eliterates. They are an entire generation who don't understand that one generation ago people were embarrassed by illiteracy. This generation hasn't struggled with the aftermath of Vietnam when soldiers came home hated. They think wars are heroic endeavors that create great sound bytes and causes to anonymously rally behind. 

The other part of me says no because these same millennials have centuries of history and culture a mouse click away. They can find the answers to questions in seconds rather than the hours it took when I was young. They have a plethora of opportunities.

But they suck.

They don't care about anything other than the lastest status update or viral video.

Kids have televisions in the bedroom. And a gaming system. And a cell phone. And a computer. And internet access. And text messaging. And i-pods and i-pads. They are plugged-in. 24/7.

Bauerlein talks in chapter three ("Screen Time") about the amount of time kids zero to six and eight to eighteen spend with the screen, which included television, video gaming, computing, video watching, and prerecorded programming. The shocking thing for me is how these kids are enjoying on-demand viewing. They learn about instant gratification with Elmo DVDs at the age of 2. I think this carries over into education. They don't have time to wait for us to teach them anything. I guess that means we have to teach is fast. Teach it concisely. Teach it when they want it. Great, I have a plan. Now how to I make it work? Again, I need to have my entertainer hat so that I can find a job in edutainment.

I think this article  from Bauerlein is an interesting companion for this post since he DOES admit that these kiddos do actually READ, even though it is mostly casual text and email messaging. I come back to a question over and over again. Is it an attention issue or an interest issue? Are kids unable to focus because of their faux muti-tasking? Are they really less smart and unable to comprehend complicated ideas? Are they just disinterested in anything beyond themselves?

Stay tuned because I am certain I haven't finished with Bauerlein yet.


P.S. I won't be posting from Starbucks again. The quality of my work seems to have diminished as I shared air with so many millennials in one location.

Does Technology Make Us More Stupider?

Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein

Okay, so the idea of my Technology In Education class is to find useful ways to integrate technology into the classroom and to teach students digital literacy. So why am I reading a book that (seemingly) recommends the opposite? I had three texts from which to choose: The Dumbest Generation, Proust and the Squid, or The Shallows. I will admit I was more interested in either of the other two, but I was determined to save money this semester. In the name of saving money, I went to my local public library website to search. Of the three, they had this one. Hence, my decision was made. My point in sharing that? I don't know that this is really the book for me, but sometimes sacrifices are made in education. And I used the Internet to make my choice.

As a brief disclaimer, I need to make a few statements. I am older than 30. I have two children in public schools. I think technology is overused by everyone (I include video games and television in this category).

My personal feelings are somewhat in line with the premise of The Dumbest Generation. I do think that most people under the age of 30 are extremely reliant on technology. I know my own children have never used a real encyclopedia or a card catalog. They don't know what it means to research in a library. They think it is as easy as a few key strokes on google. I feel like my own children are great at taking the information they find and reworking information from multiple locations into a coherent single paper, but I don't think they could make connections between unrelated concepts that wikipedia doesn't list for them. I KNOW my kids can't do their homework without the Internet most nights. They rely on teacher websites that list homework and provide links. They don't know anything about telephones before caller id. The idea of leaving the house without a cell phone strikes fear in their hearts. How will we get home without the phone?

Here is a great video clip of a popular kid's show that demonstrates my point pretty well.

Worth a good laugh, if you are old enough to see the humor.

I don't think the idea of kids being "lazy" is a new problem. Students have always struggled to make critical analysis part of their assignments. I grew up in the days of encyclopedias and microfiche. Research was hard. It was time consuming. It required thought. And still many of my classmates just used a single source. One book. Usually the encyclopedia. And usually they plagiarized.

What am I saying? I don't believe that technology is the reason that kids are "lazy" or "dumb." Maybe my generation didn't have the Internet and video games to waste six hours of the day. But we still wasted a lot of time. We rode our bikes and climbed trees. We blew up kitchens and laughed. We "hung out" with friends. Now, kids still waste time. Then, we wasted time. We just wasted it differently.

The real tragedy is these kids have more tools with which to work, but they use it for funny sound bytes and status updates. Maybe they don't know how to critically engage, or maybe they don't want to. Yet. I think there is a lot to be said for maturity, and maybe that is what millennials lack. I don't know.

This is just my initial reaction to the book, but I think there is merit to both sides of the debate. I do agree that kids are much more interested in keeping up with their social issues rather than life issues. Stay tuned for further thoughts on the topic (and the book).