socialmedian: How the Google generation thinks differently

User-submitted headlines for this story

Clips

How the Google generation thinks differently - Times Online

Submitted by Eristoddle

Sep 02, 2008

Summary

Today's teenagers have an assumed ownership of technology. Like many parents, I haven't joined Facebook, MySpace or other social networking sites. I've resisted on the basis that it would be as embarrassing to my children as it would be if I hung out with them dressed in a miniskirt. But, having spoken to various experts, I realise I have been misguided in allowing him to think of all internet innovations as his domain. It's worth remembering, after all, that it was the creative, ground-breaking minds of digital immigrants that invented the internet. Read the full article

Comments (5)

Saxonchap,

Sep 02, 2008

When one considers the falling education standards around the world, this article takes greater prominence. Are we, as humans, becoming less capable?

Daniel J Pritchett,

Sep 02, 2008

We're simply moving our focus away from the traditional metrics of intellectual success and setting up new ones. Which is more important today, an in-depth knowledge of greek/roman classics or an ability to contribute solid insights to a social network?

Ian Mac Millan,

Sep 02, 2008

How true. I have noticed, however, that both my sons (but particularly by younger one) have great recall of facts from many sources but can get very stuck when they have to write anything in depth. They don't know how to approach the creation of a more complex piece of work - structure can help the creative process, but it just passes them by.

D Og B Oi,

Sep 03, 2008

Daniel J. Pritchett, a commenter above me said "Which is more important today, an in-depth knowledge of greek/roman classics or an ability to contribute solid insights to a social network? "

Well, they're both equally important. And if I had children and they could only learn one of these things, I'd choose the Greek and Roman classics. I don't think I'd be hindering them at all. (Social networks are intuitive. They can learn that anytime.)

We tend to believe that subjects that we have no interest in, or don't seem related to our occupation or daily lives are useless. This is definitely NOT true. We need both breadth and depth of knowledge to be complete human beings and valuable employees. The best computer programmers I've ever met had very liberal educations. The worst came from tech schools where they just studied programming. Why is that? Because a liberal education teaches skills that aren't always as obvious as technical educations. Critical thinking and analysis, for example, is not something you'll learn unless you actually do it, and studying and writing about literature (including the Greek and Roman classics) will help you develop that.

Personally, I think the internet is a wonderful research tool. But it shouldn't be the only one, and teachers should require students to physically go to a library, look in periodicals and books, and some homework should be done old school, with no computer at all. I've noticed that kids don't carry around books anymore. When I was a child, all the way up through my teenage years and young adulthood, I carried books with me to places like doctor's offices, parks, bus stops, etc. If I knew I might have to wait, I had a book handy. The kids today all have PSPs and Nintendo DS. None of them seem to be reading much, unless it comes off an LCD screen. (Not that reading off an LCD screen is necessarily a bad thing, but it tends to create reading multiple sources rather rapidly. There's no depth

Daniel J. Pritchett, a commenter above me said "Which is more important today, an in-depth knowledge of greek/roman classics or an ability to contribute solid insights to a social network? "

Well, they're both equally important.  And if I had children and they could only learn one of these things, I'd choose the Greek and Roman classics.  I don't think I'd be hindering them at all.  (Social networks are intuitive.  They can learn that anytime.)

We tend to believe that subjects that we have no interest in, or don't seem related to our occupation or daily lives are useless.  This is definitely NOT true.  We need both breadth and depth of knowledge to be complete human beings and valuable employees.  The best computer programmers I've ever met had very liberal educations.  The worst came from tech schools where they just studied programming.  Why is that?  Because a liberal education teaches skills that aren't always as obvious as technical educations.  Critical thinking and analysis, for example, is not something you'll learn unless you actually do it, and studying and writing about literature (including the Greek and Roman classics) will help you develop that.

Personally, I think the internet is a wonderful research tool.  But it shouldn't be the only one, and teachers should require students to physically go to a library, look in periodicals and books, and some homework should be done old school, with no computer at all.  I've noticed that kids don't carry around books anymore.  When I was a child, all the way up through my teenage years and young adulthood, I carried books with me to places like doctor's offices, parks, bus stops, etc.  If I knew I might have to wait, I had a book handy.  The kids today all have PSPs and Nintendo DS.  None of them seem to be reading much, unless it comes off an LCD screen.  (Not that reading off an LCD screen is necessarily a bad thing, but it tends to create reading multiple sources rather rapidly.  There's no depth