The assignment for this post is to reflect on how I believe Mark Bauerlein's The Dumbest Generation can be practically applied to my classroom or professional setting. It makes me wonder why the creators of this class offered this book as a reading option. The book essentially argues against everything we are being encouraged to do in our classrooms. Even if I don't agree with everything Bauerlein presents and even if I found most of the book to be riddled with statistics and no discussion of how to make a change, the book did make me think. The book also validated personal beliefs that I already held that included resisting the over inclusion of technology in the classroom and the over indulgence of my students' whims and interests. However, these are core ideas being presented in this course. Each week I felt as if the required reading for the course directly contradicted my reading from Bauerlein. Obviously, this is not a bad thing. As I stated in my final discussion positing over chapter six, and as Bauerlein himself would argue, it is important to be well informed about both sides of an argument. Maybe I have answered my own query; the creators of the class wanted to present the counter argument against the main points of the class. If it has done nothing else, it has in fact made me think and reflect.
In relation to age, I am a member of Bauerlein's "dumbest generation." I am under 30 years of age and he frequently quotes statistics from my years in high school and college. Part of me became defensive and indignant towards his ideas; part of me agreed with him based on what I see in my classroom. However, in some ways I see myself, and many of my peers, disproving his argument. Then again, I enjoy reading for pleasure and I frequently have intellectual discussions with my close friends and significant other, which would eliminate me from his main focus, but I also have friends and acquaintances that fit every definition of Bauerlein's "dumbest generation."
Since I am caught between believing everything Bauerlein says and wanting to stand my ground and defy his observations, I plan to use this in the classroom as a means of defining and understanding the students before me. If nothing else, the statistics and observations Bauerlein has made about today's youth are accurate. It is now up to us as educators to decide if where we are heading is a good thing (which Bauerlein says it is not) or whether we need to take a stance and demand a change and a return to traditional education (which Bauerlein says we should). Personally, I tend to lean towards the latter, at least in terms of demanding our students still be taught key basic concepts, which they can later apply to their areas of special interest; however, I also realize education will never be what it once was. Just like the student and the technology, it must evolve.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
ReflectionPV
Bauerlein plays the devil's advocate throughout his book, The Dumbest Generation, to forwarn the nation's "mentors" that it's time to get serious about determining high priority principles. He uses the advent of the digital era as the backdrop for the demise of individual pride and responsibility. He presents statistics and studies by the chapter which would appear to support some very credible and reasonable concerns, and his arguments are well thought out and logically presented.
What is not so evident, is what naturally occurs once our young "leave the nest," so to speak. If we take a minute to review our own lives, it is certain that there was a moment for each one of us, when our attention was turned away from our own desires and impacted directly by an outsider. I might associate this with the finding of a lifemate or birthing of a child, for another, it could be the meeting of a significant friend or a lifechanging event. Typically that kind of life altering maturation doesn't happen in our teens or maybe, even in our twenties. There is no specific season in which we ripen as individuals.
I followed Bauerlein faithfully through his book, silently nodding my head as I visualized the classrooms at work, but as chapter six began - with the reference to Rip Van Winkle and his focus on the responsibility of American youth towards their civic duties, he began (or I did) to draw a line in the sand between us. If our children were politically active and hosted protests and intellectual all-nighters under giant trees, would that prove their social worthiness and safeguard our nation's future? I'm not so sure. A nation may rise or fall based more upon the greed of man as an animal, than on the literacy level of it's people.
If we go back to his preface, Bauerlein himself tells us he never expected people to simply accept his point of view, he wrote the book to aggitate the "mentors" and get them talking and thinking. "The realistic goal was to open the issue...to blunt the techno-zeal...to counter the sanguine portraits of informed and agile teens...' (p. vii) I think he has accomplished that goal.
What is not so evident, is what naturally occurs once our young "leave the nest," so to speak. If we take a minute to review our own lives, it is certain that there was a moment for each one of us, when our attention was turned away from our own desires and impacted directly by an outsider. I might associate this with the finding of a lifemate or birthing of a child, for another, it could be the meeting of a significant friend or a lifechanging event. Typically that kind of life altering maturation doesn't happen in our teens or maybe, even in our twenties. There is no specific season in which we ripen as individuals.
I followed Bauerlein faithfully through his book, silently nodding my head as I visualized the classrooms at work, but as chapter six began - with the reference to Rip Van Winkle and his focus on the responsibility of American youth towards their civic duties, he began (or I did) to draw a line in the sand between us. If our children were politically active and hosted protests and intellectual all-nighters under giant trees, would that prove their social worthiness and safeguard our nation's future? I'm not so sure. A nation may rise or fall based more upon the greed of man as an animal, than on the literacy level of it's people.
If we go back to his preface, Bauerlein himself tells us he never expected people to simply accept his point of view, he wrote the book to aggitate the "mentors" and get them talking and thinking. "The realistic goal was to open the issue...to blunt the techno-zeal...to counter the sanguine portraits of informed and agile teens...' (p. vii) I think he has accomplished that goal.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Reflection
Throughout his book, Bauerlein expresses his feelings of disdain for youth. Each chapter reverberates with this message. Youth are more interested in their social life and the here and now than anything the author reveres as important in our world or country today. History and traditions have little or no importance in their lives. He fears that their lack of interest in what he holds to be the foundation of our country will lead to the slow disintegration of our democratic republic.
His critical attitude toward youth may not be totally unfounded. The research and reports he looked at seemed to support his feelings. But, research can be found to support any ideas and beliefs if you look hard enough. Is his pessimism truly founded? It does take an educated public to make informed decisions. Also, by nature most youth are self-centered and view the world around them based on their own lives.
Educators need to do all they can to make sure students gain an understanding of their world. By instilling a love of learning teachers can insure that Bauerlein’s prediction will not come true. Not all students will find the joy of knowledge and value the feeling of accomplishment but we can give them the tools by which they will be an informed generation.
His critical attitude toward youth may not be totally unfounded. The research and reports he looked at seemed to support his feelings. But, research can be found to support any ideas and beliefs if you look hard enough. Is his pessimism truly founded? It does take an educated public to make informed decisions. Also, by nature most youth are self-centered and view the world around them based on their own lives.
Educators need to do all they can to make sure students gain an understanding of their world. By instilling a love of learning teachers can insure that Bauerlein’s prediction will not come true. Not all students will find the joy of knowledge and value the feeling of accomplishment but we can give them the tools by which they will be an informed generation.
Chapter Six Summary
Bauerlein begins the final chapter by recounting the story of Rip Van Winkle and stresses the importance of the specific time period (1776-17960) covered in the tale. This appears to be his way of directing our attention to the importance of civic minded people in the development of our nation. He refers to Jefferson and his view of the import of our "need to read" (p. 211). He explains the role of journalists, the ignorance of voters and states that tradition acts as a yardstick (p. 215). He comments that at some point in our maturity, we move beyond the individual and and begin thinking in terms of community duty, and it would seem, we fail miserably.
Our author emphasizes that knowledgable antagonists elevate thinking levels and, in general, society (p.218) and puts context to our lives and accomplishments. He then moves on to tear down several civic groups stating, in essence, that they are shallow in their content and are not "sufficiently prepared or interested in pursuing the cultural, ideological warfare" (p. 223). He states that the Establishment of the sixties and seventies fell "to the Adolescent horde" (p.223).
Bauerlein believes that those few who do attempt the task of warring for the benefit of all, are "limited by having no youthworld of ideas and arguments" (p.224). He speaks of pockets of intellectuals who are unable to match the depth and quality of those who came before.
John Erskine is quoted as saying that people have "the moral obligation to be intelligent" and Bauerlein proposes that knowledge is as basic as individual rights (p. 232-3). Ultimately, he ends the book with his call to set the bar higher (for adulthood) or the habits of the under-30's will cuse them to "be recalled as the generation that lost that great American heritage, forever" (p. 236).
Our author emphasizes that knowledgable antagonists elevate thinking levels and, in general, society (p.218) and puts context to our lives and accomplishments. He then moves on to tear down several civic groups stating, in essence, that they are shallow in their content and are not "sufficiently prepared or interested in pursuing the cultural, ideological warfare" (p. 223). He states that the Establishment of the sixties and seventies fell "to the Adolescent horde" (p.223).
Bauerlein believes that those few who do attempt the task of warring for the benefit of all, are "limited by having no youthworld of ideas and arguments" (p.224). He speaks of pockets of intellectuals who are unable to match the depth and quality of those who came before.
John Erskine is quoted as saying that people have "the moral obligation to be intelligent" and Bauerlein proposes that knowledge is as basic as individual rights (p. 232-3). Ultimately, he ends the book with his call to set the bar higher (for adulthood) or the habits of the under-30's will cuse them to "be recalled as the generation that lost that great American heritage, forever" (p. 236).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)