If I remember it was a science magazine and it looked at scientific subjects and it found 8 major errors in each but more minor errors in Wiki.

The biggest complaint was the organization of the articles. Encyclopedia Britannica contests the study, FWIW.

There's no doubt in my mind that the educational system is most of the problem. In most cases, we've done it to ourselves in the name of "improvement."

But I need to ask: before you speculate too much about what are teachers doing to change to appeal to the kids, don't you kind of need to stop and ask if the world is really any more visual than it used to be? There maybe more ways of displaying text or images, but are there really more ways to make a living if you can't read and understand basic text or can't perform systematic problem solving in a traditional form like math equations? Changing educational method to appeal to kids' interests or already acquired strengths may actually do some harm if it doesn't match what skills they need for their eventual employment.

As far as the downward trend, I do have one somewhat objective thing anyone could do if you knew someone who had been teaching in a district any length of time: review the textbooks that have been used for any particular high school course over the last ten to fifteen years. I think the dumbing down will pretty much be immediately apparent.

I've got no problem with Wikipedia for refreshing your memory about something that you kind of know, in which case you'll recognize some wild inaccuracy, or for really basic information that you expand on or verify with other sources. Or for looking up random junk to further a GreekChat discussion.

I like to waste time drifting from one interesting Wikipedia article to another, and I'm sure some of my nerdier students do too. I don't think the problem is that the teachers are too lazy to verify the wikipedia information; the main problem is that the kids will look like idiots citing it in college. You kind of have to learn to use the sources appropriate for the field you are writing about and I don't think wikipedia is going to be the go to source is any field.

But for fifth grade? Sure.

Exactly!! I am astonished to see how much my mom struggles (she's an 8th grade language arts teacher) to teach her kids something that DOESN'T revolve around testing. She always telling me how her curriculum has to focus on the TAKS tests. In 8th grade they don't take the writing TAKS, they take the reading. So to make sure her kids pass the TAKS she has to focus her curriculum on making sure the kids know what to do on the reading, and so their writing skills suffer!

My mom says that the main worry in the schools is to just teach what the kids will be tested on...why? Because the teachers just want to be able to keep their jobs.

I was SHOCKED to see my 8th grade cousin (who is very bright) plagerize her science fair report. When I questioned her about it she said that:
1. she didn't plagerize b/c she changed a couple words around
2. her teacher never taught them how to make sure NOT to plagerize
3. her teacher doesn't even care.

I know that I got in major trouble in 4th grade for plagerizing, and to see that it isn't taken seriously at this stage is appalling. What is she going to do when she goes to HS and college?


I know that soemtimes testing can be good, but not everyone (like me) do well on standardized testing. I think we should just go back to the days when teachers were able to TEACH!

I agree with your comments, but we can all improve our grammar. Plagiarism is a serious offense and if one fails to learn it when they are young, he or she will fail to learn about when in college and they actually do test you on those subjects.

What we learn today is different from the teaching methods of yesteryear. It can be explained that 20 years ago, all we had to record our ideas were a PC on DOS, listen to music on a huge CD player and rented movies on VCRs--beta max. Now, we view movies on line, digimons and DVDs, iPODS if we have them. We record music on our iPhones, MP3 players and we program our directions to our destinations on our GPS's.

All this to say that when we ask our teachers to prepare our students for the technology world, then we need to be thinking in projects, with showing our work. There are other activities that we can do to give the "experiential method" versus the "Skinner, Piaget and partially Socratic" method of teaching.

I bet if you asked kids in a urban high school to organize a business model that will attract a defined number of people, using a safe production procedures, folks would be amazed...

When I get my students, I find their weak points, then I built them up from there.

I think that the world is much more multimedia, yes - compare styles of acquiring information today with even 10 years ago, not to mention 20 or 30 (when many curricula were developed) . . . it's instant feedback, using video, animation or audio, Internet surfing, television sound bites, educational programming, etc.

This is completely irrelevant - my point was not to remove the ability to "read and understand basic text or ... perform systematic problem solving" at all. That would seem silly, wouldn't it?

These things should not be mutually exclusive - instead, you can build "traditional" skills by using methods that play to Gen Y learning styles. It's not like you either learn via multimedia or can do math problems - and, in fact, this false dichotomy seems to be one of the major stumbling blocks for many teachers. I know it's hard, especially because, as multiple studies have indicated, Gen Y learns differently than Gen X and the Baby Boomers - this means the teachers have to do it differently than they learned it. It's hard. It's not impossible, nor inconsistent with traditional educational values.

I have honestly no idea here, and it may be true - however, the average person reads at about a 5th to 8th grade level (see your local newspaper for evidence - that's why it is written at its given diction level), so perhaps that's part of it? It seems like a chicken-and-egg problem at that point.

Can you refer me to the studies that actually prove that Gen Y learns differently? This is an often quoted point, but I've never seen anything that really backed it up honestly. I mean in a cognitive science kind of way, not in a "my four year old niece plays educational games on the computer" kind of way.

Because they use different technology there seems to be an assumption of difference, but I've never seen the studies that back up a real difference in how learning takes place. Have you? On what foundation are you basing your conclusion that the "problem" is the methods used.

I don't think it's an either/or and I agree that teachers need to implement the kind of technologies that kids will be expected to use. (For example, learning how to use an online database for research is probably more important than learning how to physically find stuff in the media center.) But my concern is that the new "Gen Y" elements may not really add anything to the basic skill that the kid needs to master. If you can't comprehend the articles you find, you're screwed no matter what format they are in. Everyone is worrying about the how and shifting it around when it's the what that really needs focusing on.

And if you are teaching kids how to read research, it really does make sense to have that skill depended on the fewest number of variables. Not, will the local internet server be functioning that day and will each of the kid's computer be working, but does everyone have a book or a photocopy? When we're talking about what we do one on one instant is good. When you are teaching basic skills to a group of 30 people, steady may be better. When they move beyond basic, then it makes sense to encourage independent exploration and mastery.


About the textbooks, if the book is for an 11th or 12th grade class, dumbing it down reflects a lowering of expectations for the group of kids above the average reading level. Newspapers have been at that level for a long time. (At least since I was in 7th grade and took our cheesy media studies elective.) I don't think the textbooks have. The assumption apparently used to be that if you were taking American Literature or American History at the 11th grade level that you basically read at an 11th grade level. Today, not so much.

Well, there's a problem with our language here - I would also like to see studies that link learning styles to different generations, but this type of research is in its infancy (to say the least); especially in a "cognitive sciences" sense.

I mean what I wrote in a literal sense - Gen Y learns in a different way, in that they choose to acquire their preferred information in a far different way (and not so much that they are unable to obtain information in the same fashion, or excel in different areas). I realize I was quite unclear there - I can probably dig for a few studies if you choose, but I think it's self-evident that Gen Y is not gathering information (which I shortened to "learning") in the same way on their own (and it's a lesser point, honestly).

I have no foundation for any conclusion on the "problem" being the methods used, in the sense that I am not a teacher and I have no background in teaching. I have a background in group and individual decision making, persuasion, and communication. In my line of work, it is important for me to be able to craft a message that makes sense across multiple backgrounds, learning styles, experience filters and intellectual capacities - it's super nerdy, so I can explain better in a PM if you'd like. Basically, part of my job is to keep up with generational trends - most analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative (by necessity, unfortunately), though, if that interests you.

OK - but I've never seen any real evidence that this is true for Gen Y, either. Just like you said before, I've heard this, but I don't see anything that really lets me know any causation at all. If it is endemic, it would seem important (and possible) to identify these things, to me anyway.

We just say "kids today are stupid!" but can't account for bias or potential causes (beyond incredibly lame things like "the Internet" or "text messaging") - and I know you're not necessarily doing that, but that's the attitude I abhor, really.

That's what I'm saying though - it's another "chicken/egg" argument. If most people don't read at an 11th-grade level, don't you have to lower the textbook level? Doesn't keeping the level higher have negative consequences for your earlier points about Gen Y "just not getting it" or not having comprehension of materials?

This is really my main point of interest - after all of the alarmist articles and hand-wringing, I don't think we're any closer to really identifying the problem (if any) with the Gen Y set. That's frustrating for me, and it sounds like it might be for you, too.

I think we also have to define Gen Y. There are those who say that Gen Y began immediately after Gen X ended - that means those born in 1977 or later are Gen Y. Then there are those who believe that Gen Y/Millennial generation begins in 1980 and yet again, those who believe that it begins in 1982 (as 1982ers turned 18 in 2000) So which is it? If you are including those born in 1977-1981 (what I like to call Cuspers), then you probably aren't going to find significant differences...except the increased likelihood of reading things online rather than in traditional print format.

Almost every source I trust goes no earlier than '81 for Gen Y - at no point should '77 reasonably be included anywhere but Gen X, in my opinion.

This is a go-nowhere argument based purely on minutiae, and represents everything that is wrong with the entire concept of 'generational consistencies' - it's a hijack.

The 'cuspers' argument is totally disingenuous, as it is well-documented that the borders are exceptionally fluid - Gen Y status is likely influenced by how affluent your family was growing up, as the traditional elements of Gen Y upbringing lagged in some parts of the nation, especially poorer parts.

In short - start a new thread, this has nothing to do with the current one, don't you think? After all, today's students are wholly unaffected by "where Gen Y begins" unless you're worried that it somehow magically began in 1989 (for HS students), right? You bring this point (and your blog) up in the weirdest spots, and I think it's purely to push some weird agenda you have against being labeled "Gen Y" - which you wouldn't anyway, because of your corner-case "traditional" upbringing. It just doesn't matter.

There's already a thread somewhere about this (posted a long time ago....at least a couple of years....do a search...)...in any case, this is a response to those who seem to lump all Gen Ys together, whether they're in high school, in college or already in the workforce. Posters have mentioned that Gen Y doesn't learn/process information the same way as Gen X or Boomers. This is why I asked what one means by "Gen Y." Being a 79er, I don't like being lumped with Gen Y...I'm usually not, as you've said, but there are those who believe that Gen X ended in 1976 rather than '81 or '82...maybe because 76ers turned 18 the year Kurt Cobain died. Who knows.

I think most people who use Gen X or Gen Y aren't trying to use them with any academic precision or even anythink more than a generic, shorthand meaning. I certainly have never spent a minute wondering where Gen X ended and Gen Y began. Seems like a fruitless question, to me; these generational labels are purely social and articificial contructs anyway.

It also seems to me that people who try to answer the more important questions about how kids are doing in school are going to completely miss the forest for the trees if they're worried about where Gen X ends and Gen Y begins.

1977 is not Generation X in any way, shape or form. If you can't remember MTV never not being there (and I don't mean because you lived in the boonies w/ no cable), you are not Generation X. Per the ORIGINAL definition of it from Coupland's book, Gen X births probably at the LATEST ended in 1974 (Nixon's resignation).

I thought that it went baby boomers, X, Y, Millenials. Remember, kids that are college freshmen now were born in 1989.

I thought Coupland's book defined Gen X as the last few years of the baby boom generation...i.e. 1960-1964.

4 years is not a generation, and they are not part of the baby boom.

The Baby Boom generation is often, though not always, counted as being from 1945 to 1964 or so (1964 being when a sharp decline in the birth rate can be seen). Steve Gillon breaks that into Boomer (up to 1957, when the birth rate hit its peak) and Shadow Boomers (1958-64). Strauss and Howe defined Gen X (calling the "13th generation") as those born between 1861 and 1981.

But again, these are mainly social constructs. Whether I'm labeled as a Boomer or Gen X is meaningless as far as understanding how I learn. Sideline question to show how this kind of label may not be valuable: As a child born in 1961, does it matter that I'm the youngest in the family, or that my parents were depression children and WWII-era adults rather than WWII-era children?

The whole Gen X/Gen Y question really seems like a red herring to me. It's may be useful for advertisers, but I question it's usefulness beyond making broad generalizations about learning styles.