Month: June 2004

We offer a database of the online resources we encounter in our activities. There are approximately 550 links in our collection. Approximately twice a year I go through the entire collection to search for dead links. I have taken to keeping track of he number of links that do not function and I am unable to locate with a Google search. This time the number was 12. Obviously, the number of links is partly a function of the type of resources I collect. However, this seems a small % and one way to quantify the stability of web resources.

James Gee is becoming one of my favorite writers (see previous posts about Gee’s analysis of computer games). I recently read his chapter “Millennials and bobos, Blue’s Clues and Sesame Street: A story for our times” in Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (Edited by Alvermann, 2004).

I would describe this chapter as an effort to describe the changes in values that are occuring across generations and how such change may be moderated by differences in wealth. I would describe myself as a bobo and my kids millennials. Millennials are children born after 1982 and are more likely to be the younger children in a family than the older children. As parents, bobos probably are upper middle class and desire a lifestyle that is meaningful, but also involves the pursuit of wealth and status.

Gee describes bobos as helping their children develop a portfolio because both parents and children view themselves as ongoing projects. The idea of shape shifting portfolio people implies that significant life changes are likely and well prepared people rely upon a collection of skills and experiences they can use to promote themselves when faced with change. They repurpose past experiences and skills to adapt and gain an advantage when faced with changing circumstances. Parents invest in their children to develop this portfolio – prestige colleges if possible, travel, development of special talents (music, athletics).

There is an element of concern in this analysis and this concern relates to the failure of schools to address an increasing gap between the “haves” and “have nots.” Parents with money appear committed to provide their children a range of experiences necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing world. Society in general does not appear to be committed to providing all children this range of experiences and schools are placed in the position of providing “the basics.” The lack of commitment of schools to experiences involving creativity, deep thinking, long term projects may eventually limit the opportunity of underpriviledged children unable to acquire such experiences in other settings.

Wired News reports that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a law blocking companies that appear to offer porn to children. The basis for this decision was the first amendment.

My concern is that this situation will invite even tighter access controls by schools.

Additional Washington Post Analysis

For you history fans:

The University Libraries of the University of Cincinnati are taking responsibility for “Lewis and Clark: A Journey.” You may want to follow the expedition by following
daily accounts or examine other links available at the site.

Put this in the category of “I don’t know for certain, but I don’t think so.”

I have been to a number of presentations now in which “visionaries” describe today’s students as “different” than we are/were. I agree. Students are supposedly bored by today’s classrooms and today’s learning experiences. Again, I agree or at least I guess I agree. However, just for the sake of argument, how do we really know that this is really true. Perhaps kids in the 60s were really bored too, but were either afraid to say so then or by now have forgotten. Actually, if we could describe college-age students as students in this one-sided discussion, I could probably argue that today’s students are probably more “grade oriented” than the college students of my generation. Not necessarily the same thing as involved or interested, but clearly not rejecting “the establishment.” Anyway, I digress and should be doing a better job of focusing on my point.

During the type of visionary offering I have in mind, the presenter gets to a point at which he/she claims that students are used to “processing” multiple, simultaneous sources of information. There may be a reference to Sesame Street although other program references might now be more appropriate. Just to convince the audience that things have changed, the presenter displays a screen image from CNN or some similar source. The image shows an anchor person speaking, a graphic or video source, and a completely unrelated text stream scrolling at the bottom of the screen. This is not all. The presenter describes an imaginary student as watching this while talking on a cell phone, instant messaging, and listening to the stereo. True, this scenario is different than today’s teachers experienced as students.

This is where the logic of this presentation always gets a little fuzzy for me. If the message is classroom experiences are boring in comparison, I guess this position is probably valid. However, I always kind of get the impression the presenter is making an additional claim. The concern I have is that the claim is either that a new generation of humans has recently evolved to be capable of processing multiple unrelated streams of input or that the multi-input living room scene is a model for the ideal classroom. This is the point at which the research of developmental and cognitive psychologists might inform any assumptions being made. The developmental literature is a little far afield for me, but I know of no work demonstrating a generational progression in the capacity for handling multiple unrelated inputs. The cognitive literature I do follow . Older work (e.g., the impact of irrelevant images in children’s literature) and recent work with multimedia (e.g., Mayer – check spelling) argue that unnecessary information reduces processing efficiency and redundant information in the same modality can reduce learning. The issues here are different than the issue of “it is nice to have another input channel to attend to when the first channel becomes boring.”

Are younger people better at handling multiple inputs? My reactions is that this may be the wrong question to worry about. Consider this. I happen to like to channel surf and continually find myself rotating through 20 or so channels without realizing that I have lapsed into this “mode.” My wife hates this behavior. Somehow, I think I am actually following what is happening on CNN headline news, the baseball game, G4TechTV, the weather channel, etc. Would you be willing to conclude that my preference for this style of television viewing suggests much about what type of television programming should be developed for adult males?

OK, I feel better now. Learning experiences do need to be more engaging. The race has not evolved to require unrelated sensory experiences.