The argument of Bauerlein's book goes deeper than, simply the unintelligence of the upcoming generation. I boil his argument down to two main points. Education has not progressed, even through technological advancements, and the young generation is lacking intellectual motivation. He talks extensively about what kid should be learning in the classroom, the efforts of schools to better their students, and the dwindling numbers aspiring to fill necessary careers. The investments of schools in computers, iPad, and such is not yielding positive results. Students do not retain knowledge like previous generation, but this is not completely the schools' fault. Students do not have the same desire, or need to learn. Bauerlein spend a great deal of time on teen's use of technology. They have infinite information, literally at their fingertips, through the internet, and do not wish to spend their time in study. These arguments give way to his call to action. Something must be done this generation, and they aren't headed down a path to help themselves.
I have found some places where I especially agreed with what Bauerlein said. "Young people have never been so intensely mindful of and present to one another, so enabled in adolescent contact. Teen images and songs, hot gossip and games, and youth-to-youth communications no longer limited by time or space wrap them up in a generational cocoon reaching all the way into their bedrooms." There is even a saying for this, #yolo. I very much agree that with social networking and internet devices my generation lives in the here and now. Why should study for that history test and not go out with my friends? You only live once. Another instance I found is this "Digital technology might brighten the students' outlook not only for the obvious reason that it gives them mouses and keyboards to wield, but also because it saves them the effort of acquiring knowledge and developing skills. When screens deliver words and numbers and images in fun sequence, digital fans assert, the students imbibe the embedded lessons with glee, but, in fact while the medium may raise the glee of the students, we have little evidence that the embedded lessons take hold as sustained learning in students' minds." I am a skeptic of more and more technological involvement in the classroom. My school has a plan to give iPads to students in the coming years, and for what? I do not believe that they will improve anything. I connect both of these passages to real world events and agree with the outcomes.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that they do not pertain to me, but there were segments where I disagreed with the Bauerlein. "Undergraduates in 2006, it turned out, scored 30 percent higher than students in 1982 on the narcissism scale, with two-thirds of them reaching above-average levels. The researchers traced the rise directly to self-esteem orientations in the schoolroom, and lead author Jean Twenge groused, 'We need to stop endlessly repeating, 'You're special,' and having children repeat it back. Kids are self -centered enough already.'" Sure I was praised in elementary school, and have can have a large ego regarding certain things, but in no way would I think school is producing narcissist. If anything I have been broken down by teachers. I also found this: "As long as adolescent concerns didn't take up every leisure hour of the day, as long as mentors now and then impressed the young with the importance of knowledge, as long as book reading held steady, intellectual pursuits maintained some ground in the out-of-school lives of kids. They weren't required for work or school, but they still contributed to a young person's formation. They included reading for fun, visiting museums, listening to what music educators call 'art music,' browsing in libraries and bookstores, attending theater and dance performances, joining extracurricular groups (such as French Club), and participating in politics, say by volunteering in a campaign." I was offended by this list of things that students used to do but are no longer. I am currently re-reading the Hobbit by Tolkien, playing in the pit orchestra for "The Sound of Music," have been to local, national, and international museums, and enjoy listening to some Glen Miller, music rich in American history that I would classify as "art music."
I have mixed feelings about the effectiveness of Bauerlein's argument. There were certain times when some of the things that he said made absolutely no sense, and other times when his persuasion worked. However, I find it a bit ironic, formatting the book the way he did. It is written in such a way that the generation he describes, the dumbest generation, would never read it. He cites information how teens like to skim, and get the information they need quickly. Then Bauerlein does the opposite. His 250 page book is full of facts and figures that bog the reader down. This along with his call to action show that his intended audience is older. Even though they are not the group taking the criticism, his allegations come across hard. He backs his claim up with extensive information to get his audience to believe in the problem. The sheer quantity of figures may be slightly excessive, but they provide plenty of backing to make his claim believable. My personal reaction is just "meh", I certainly wouldn't have read the whole thing on my own (which probably further proves his argument).
No comments:
Post a Comment