In their 2008 interview Bauerlein and Howe duke it out over
the intelligence of the Millennial Generation. Bauerlein believes it to be the “Dumbest Generation,”
which is evidenced by his book The
Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and
Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone under 30.) However this
would need to be amended to don’t trust anyone under 33 since it is now October
of 2012. He argues that digital overload, brought on by social networking and
video gaming, results in a lack of serious reading that negatively impacts
intellectual development during the most time in a student’s life. Millennials
have no depth to their knowledge. He also argues that while many young people
are reading Harry Potter type books, they are not becoming real readers. He
paints Millennials as self-absorbed narcissists who use the internet as a “window
to the self.”
On the other side of the argument it Howe, author of Millennials Rising: The Next Great
Generation. He argues that Millennials are ambitious, confident, optimists
who have a lot in common with their grandparents’ GI generation. He argues that
they are more intelligent on the whole based on trends such as “reversal of self-destructive
behaviors,” rising IQ scores, and the ability to learn through more elaborate
classroom activities than the previous generation. However, many of the facts
he lists do not necessarily result from higher intelligence, it could just be
access to better or more information.
Both agreed that the Millennial Generation benefits from
greater access to information, better access to resources, lower violent crime
rates, and more ambitious life goals. However, an argument about whether they
are more or less intelligent seems to miss the mark. Could it be that maybe
they possess a different type of intelligence? Or maybe that they communicate
and interact differently than any previous generation to an extent that renders
previous measures void? Whatever the differences, one thing is made clear by
this debate. Teachers can use Generational Theory as a guide in teaching
students. Understanding the generation they are teaching is key to reaching
those students and making learning relevant
to their lives.
Wow! What a great debate! I think technology can hinder learning, but I think technology, if used well, can actually enhance critical thinking. The important thing is to yield technology for abstract thought and not to contrive for the students the answers to questions. I fear also, though, that technology has made students lazy since they expect information and access instantly. I can see this through working in the schools. Lets hope that technology does not cause determination and hard work to dissipate but rather to enforce it.
ReplyDeleteYes, Abigail, I am concerned about the lazy aspect as well. I'm surprised at the number of students who require a calculator for simple addition! It makes teaching numbers in German difficult!
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the question of concern is not really about intelligence and is more aligned with a different type of intelligence. One item that I think would be interesting to hear about would be the analysis of the (US) generation of older teens from the 1920's compared to the generation from the 1890's. During that time period there were immense changes, but I guess the same event could be talked about for every generation.
ReplyDeleteI think I have a different perspective about events than Generation Y because I am on the border of being a GenX and GenY. There are many generational differences with how I perceive technology versus someone who has been immersed in it since birth.
I can relate!
DeleteWhat I found quite interesting about Bauerlein's argument was something that Howe never quite addressed, which I think is quite important, and I want your opinion on it as well. Bauerlein said that while students are much better at understanding programs and texts that are highly referential to their culture, such as "The Simpsons" or "30 Rock," they have much more difficulty understanding media that have a great deal of psychological or moral complexity, and while I would not consider that an aspect of intelligence necessarily (although I suppose you could make an argument for interpersonal on Bloom's), I would say that it is a very real concern that might need to be addressed. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI think that is a very superficial sort of cultural intelligence when students understand types of programs in popular culture. There is no depth to their understanding, they don't ask why? or so what? when they take in the information it's just a recall kind of learning that may relate to them, but they don't bother to learn the significance of the text or program. And quite frankly, these programs and texts aren't written on a level to engage the person in higher-order thinking, the person is simply a receptacle for entertainment. I suppose we educators could challenge students to look at these types of programs more critically and see if they can make other deeper connections about how they reflect society and if they make a significant contribution in some way. But I think the best thing we can do is get them engaged in texts that provide significant opportunity for higher-order thinking. They don't have to be boring. There is quite a bit of HOT topics in Latin, and German fairy-tales are fascinatingly shocking and often grotesque. Unfortunately sometimes we have to manipulate our students interest in these types of things to get them thinking about what it really says about our society. It won't hurt them to make them take a look in the mirror and address some hard questions about why the ugliness can be so appealing.
Delete