Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

[MysticCat]

ShyViolet --

I can't tell from your post whether the students you are describing are American students or British students.

You seem to be describing American students (what with references to NCLB), and given the subject of this thread I would expect these to be descriptions of American students. But given that your experience, recently at least, is in the UK and that you say you've noticed a decline in the three years you've been teaching the course you currently teach, are you describing the students you teach in Scotland?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

ShyViolet --

I can't tell from your post whether the students you are describing are American students or British students.

You seem to be describing American students (what with references to NCLB), and given the subject of this thread I would expect these to be descriptions of American students. But given that your experience, recently at least, is in the UK and that you say you've noticed a decline in the three years you've been teaching the course you currently teach, are you describing the students you teach in Scotland?

Agreed - this seems like a very specific rant, with some passing effort to relate it to the subject of the thread? I don't know - anecdotal evidence just sits incredibly poorly with me in this particular arena, especially since there is absolutely no effort made toward finding causation or anything like that.

There are a couple of key issues here, mostly related to confirmation bias/selection bias, and the difficulty of using small-sample anecdotes where our own eyes likely lie to us. Without a systematic way to compare, it sounds like complaining about students' differing interest levels or unwillingness to conform to existing standards - both of which should indicate at least the potential for teachers or the educational system itself to be part of the problem. How are teachers changing their methods to cope with a generation that learns increasingly through visual media, and has a much wider array of existing knowledge (although without much in the way of depth in any particular area), etc etc etc?

In some ways, it suggests cognitive dissonance regarding the whole situation, which is where it becomes difficult for someone outside the situation to really know where to begin. Each one of these articles and posts just raises more questions for me, rather than defining the problem in any meaningful way.

As an aside, I wouldn't be shocked to find that Wikipedia becomes eligible for (near-)primary-source citation in the near future, if it isn't already - most of the articles, even on esoterica, are well cited, and while I'd guess the students should just go to the citations, as a reference material that kind of onus perhaps should go to the teachers as well.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

As an aside, I wouldn't be shocked to find that Wikipedia becomes eligible for (near-)primary-source citation in the near future, if it isn't already - most of the articles, even on esoterica, are well cited, and while I'd guess the students should just go to the citations, as a reference material that kind of onus perhaps should go to the teachers as well.

I remember hearing story a year or two ago where a study/survey had been done comparing the accuracy of the Wiki to the Encyclopedia Britannica. It compared favorably.

[/sidetrack]

And I agree with the remainder of your post.

I also find it mildly ironic than in a post where the poster seems to lament the falling standards of students, two of us at least can't even tell what students the poster is talking about.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I remember hearing story a year or two ago where a study/survey had been done comparing the accuracy of the Wiki to the Encyclopedia Britannica. It compared favorably.

[/sidetrack]

And I agree with the remainder of your post.

I also find it mildly ironic than in a post where the poster seems to lament the falling standards of students, two of us at least can't even tell what students the poster is talking about.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't know - anecdotal evidence just sits incredibly poorly with me in this particular arena, especially since there is absolutely no effort made toward finding causation or anything like that.

There are a couple of key issues here, mostly related to confirmation bias/selection bias, and the difficulty of using small-sample anecdotes where our own eyes likely lie to us. Without a systematic way to compare, it sounds like complaining about students' differing interest levels or unwillingness to conform to existing standards - both of which should indicate at least the potential for teachers or the educational system itself to be part of the problem. How are teachers changing their methods to cope with a generation that learns increasingly through visual media, and has a much wider array of existing knowledge (although without much in the way of depth in any particular area), etc etc etc?

As an aside, I wouldn't be shocked to find that Wikipedia becomes eligible for (near-)primary-source citation in the near future, if it isn't already - most of the articles, even on esoterica, are well cited, and while I'd guess the students should just go to the citations, as a reference material that kind of onus perhaps should go to the teachers as well.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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?

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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 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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[Taualumna]

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.