dumbestgen


 * Random thoughts about the book //The Dumbest Generation//**


 * Before reading this book, I knew that the rapid growth of leisure time options and the addictive nature of technology has led to younger people reading even less than before. What I did not know/realize was the following:
 * Reading has a "cumulative, developmental nature" which produces "a cognitive benefit that says the more you read, the more you can read. Reading researchers call it the 'Matthew Effect,' in which those who acquire reading skills in childhood read and learn later in life at a faster pace than those who do not...A sinister corollary to the cognitive benefit applies: the more you don't read, the more you can't read." (p. 59)
 * I know people skim more when reading online material rather than printed, but I had never seen studies. Those cited in the book were quite alarming. Several stats in p. 144-145 and more showed how people who read news barely read it, scanning more than reading. In addition, Web usability experts recommend that websites use a 6th grade reading level on the home page to attract a large number of readers.
 * The author is disturbed that almost all of the internet use by teenagers is dedicated to nonstop peer contact followed by clothing/movies/music/etc. instead of looking at blogs/forums on "politics, economics, law, or policy." (p. 135) Even without "the digital age," I do not think that teenagers did/would read much related to those topics.
 * The author does not like the argument "technology's here to stay, so we might as well go with it" because it "prompts researchers to tolerate and respect the habits young people develop as a serious and catholic literacy." His argument opened my eyes to that concern but I am more convinced by the idea that we should not ignore technology because it is so ubiquitous to almost all professions and, despite the many pitfalls the author lists, I believe it can be quite effective in learning.
 * I did like the quote on p. 125: "the basic question of whether technology might, under certain conditions, hinder academic achievement, goes unasked. The spotlight remains on the promise, the potential. The outcomes continue to frustrate expectations, but the backers push forward, the next time armed with an updated eBook, tutelary games the kids will love, more school-wide coordination, a 16-point plan, not a 15-point one..."
 * I do realize it sells books (heck...I even bought one), but I am quite wary of strong language like "stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future."
 * There are some parts of western culture that I am saddened are fading away. One of those mentioned in the book is performing arts. "In 1982, 18-24 year olds (in the US) made up 18.5 percent of the performing arts attendance. In 2002, the portion fell to 11.2." (p. 200) This does not bode well for the future of the arts. One not mentioned in the book is the card game bridge. It is such a fun, mentally challenging game that most young people do not play anymore. I realize that culture often changes and that other alternatives that could be as creative and mentally stimulating may replace the aformentioned items...I just personally wish that these in particular would not disappear.
 * Having said that, the author seemed to have a mid 20th century outlook on what students should know. Almost all of his examples from Literature and History were most important during that time period, when western civilization, not global civilizations, was the focus of education. He argues that it is important to transmit culture and tradition, and that adults must be the ones to do that.
 * Left to their own devices, teenagers would only learn from each other. This is interesting (and related to the previous point). Technology has decreased the need for adult interaction (example: students can directly talk/communicate with one another all the time instead of going through parents, such as when there was one phone in the house).
 * While I am not convinced that the digital age is "stupefying young Americans," I believe that enough evidence was presented to show that the digital age is not making people (in general) smarter.
 * (related to the previous point) While students read/write more per day than they ever have, they do not seem (in general) to be more analytical or better writers than in years past.
 * I am a fan of blogs/discussion boards. Yes, even though many posts are grammatically weak and/or are lacking deep analysis, there are many that are the opposite. I think the opportunities for ideas to be posted and challenged by a large number of people throughout the world is one of the web's biggest strengths.
 * There were many other factors not mentioned that could have been included, most notably a family's influence on learning (though it was indirectly referred to in the "mentors" chapter).
 * The author mentions that students don't need education to always be fun (aka the "Sesame Street effect"--if learning isn't fun, it isn't any good--p. 106). "Young people need mentors not to go with the youth flow, but to stand staunchly against it, to represent something smarter and finer than the cacophony of social life. They don't need more pop culture and youth perspectives in the classroom. They get enough of those on their own...The more mentors have engaged youth in youth terms, though, the more youth have disengaged from the mentors themselves and the culture they are supposed to represent." (p. 199-200) I thought this was one of the best arguments.
 * A Q I'd like to ask the author:
 * What do you say about the statistics that show the correlation between digital access and economic success?
 * I'll stop here. There's even more comments I could make or additional thoughts I could write, but I've got to go check Facebook.

Quick links:
 * One Summary
 * A Counter Argument -- This is critiqued in the book, but here is one argument on the other side
 * Related video (that would go against some of the author's main points: Ken Robinson speech