Are people better informed in the information society?
Hanson and Alexnader's book Taking Sides, decided to explore the current information age, and whether people are actually more informed or less informed. Linda Jackson, amongst her other colleagues Alexander von Eye, Frank Biocca, Gretchen Barbatsis, Yong Zhao, and Hiram Fitzgerald, all advocate that specically, low income youth who used the internet more, had higher scores on the SATS and higher GPAS. The study that they conducted further suppports the growing eagnerss in the world that the Internet may have just been the greatest communicative tool invented, in the sense that one the many reasons of the tool's credibility is that it will level the "educational playing field" for youth in low income houses. In contrast, Mark Bauerlein advocates that people are not better informed in this "high speed information decade" (p. 364). He finds this new digital age to be an "empty promise"(p. 364), in th esense that digital tools such as the TV and the Internet, distract kids from reaching their potential in school, resulting in a less infomred public in topics such as economics, politics, and varying, subjective local issues. Both authors are trying to answer the same age, old question that has been around for generations, "Is the ability to communicate faster equivicable to the quality of the communication experience in and of itself" (p. 364). Even though this is a great question to ask, the question has been around for generations, specifically when the world came out with news papers, radios, televisions, and now the world wide web. However, in this new digital age, certain elements have appeared that have not been present in the past, including the plethora of excess of information, and if that excess information "truly informs".
Jackson and her colleagues seek to address this "age old problem" by trying to demonstrate the potential of the internet to enhance educational outcomes of low-income families. Although her survey did conclude with that of a successful result, her survey was extremely subjective, in that the citizens of the United States do not only consist of low-income youth. Her study offered three explanations for four out of the five hypotheses' that were confirmed. First, the variability in the 16 schools that participated in this study, had access to great computer and software programs. Secondly, the inability of the 140 students teacher's did not incorporate their lesson plans with this online techonoly offered, which could explain why the majority of student's academic perfomrance in mathematics did not change, while SAT scores and reading comprehension showed a dramatic improvement across the board. Third, even though the study was conducted over a 16 month period, this was nearly not enought time for student's to gain adequate information on how to use technology in an effective manner, which could have further promoted the low-income youth's academic performance. From these three points, Jackson gathered that the use of the internet improved cognitive skills, including visual intelligence, spatial, iconic, and image representations skills (p. 366). Moreover Jackson states, "Having a home computer as been associated with ghihger test scores in reading, even after crontrolling for family inome and other factors related to reading and test scores" (p. 367). However, Jackson's main point is that the future of our Country rests in our children, and considering that 30% of the United States Youth Population lives below the poverty line, the internet could be an extremely useful tool in order to get youth a better education, and possibly a better job futuristically in this Country. As I said before, Jackson's study was extremely subjective, and very detailed. Through this complex study, she found one conclusion that was inescapable from the readers that read her article: "The internet showed the potential to enhave academic achievement" (p. 365). Hanson's and Alexander's book Taking Sides agrees with this statement due to the blatant fact that other studies have been "equivocal" (p. 365) to the one that Jackson conducted. Personally, the judgements that I tried to make myself particularly aware of was that of the validity and reliability of the study, and if this finding that Jackson made is inescapable and should be taken seriously in the sense that our local, state, and country should provide tax benefits to further fuel the internet being a great and reliable source for lower income youth, which do in fact comprise 30 percent of the overall youth in the United States, and our the future of our country's well being.
Mark Bauerlein argues that the availability of the digital age only further promotes the "over achhieving" children to only be focused on success and anxiety (p. 376). With anxiety, Bauerlein argues that students will do anything to get an "easy A". Even if it means relying on easily accesible websites such as wikipedia which contain terrible secondary source information. To get an A with honor, takes time, responsibility, and integrity. Bauerlein points out the strucutural settings of highschools are partially to blame for this, driving students into a competive frenzy, which makes schools a "hotbed for Machiavellian strategy" (p. 377). When Daivd Brooks toured Princeton and interviewed students, his conclusion was this, "Just get the grades, they tell themselves, ace the test, stduty, study, study. Assignments become exercises to complete, like doing the dishes, not knowledge to acquire for the rest of their lives. The innfer life fades; only the external credits count" (p.377). Although this may sound like torturous work, the surprising fact about all of data is this: when students were asked how much time they spend studying each week for each class that they were enrolled in, 90 percent of them said they spent a REDICULOUSLY amount of 5 hours or less, which led to the embarssing consequence of statistical evidence that students retain information that is scatterted and underanalyzed (p. 378- 379). These findings can refute the main stream norm that is usually televised on TV shows stating how "over-worked" and "extremely stressed" students are. In addition to this, there is problem that may be more imminent than student's lacking capability to retain unscattered analyzed information which is this: even due to increased techonoly and information available to the American public, young Americans today are nomore knowledgeable, fluent, inquisitive, or up to date on any type of social, economical, or political event in the world. And if for some reason they do obtain information on issues such as these, the information provided from the digital era can more than likely be biased or false! "The autonomy as a cost: the more they attend to themselves, the less they remember the past and envision a future" (p. 381). The ability to not analyze and fully comprehend information that these students are obtaining falls into dangerous waters in the sense that democracy thribes upon a knowledgeable citizenery, not just citizens who can recite random theories, a democracy needs citizens that can think for themselves, and have a broader knowledge that extends from they have learned from websites such as Wikipedia; they need to analyze what they are learning, and not just try to strive for that "easy A". But in a structural system of highschools, where there is a breeding ground for "mainstream" thought, who can blame them? An existentialist, would say take responsibility for your own actions, and make sure you get the valuable education you deserve, and use this digital age as a way to further increase your analytical knowledge.
Personally, I do not entirely agree with both authors. With the birth of the digital age, has come along a mixed sense of optimism and pessimism. The ability to retrieve information drastically quicker than you could have 20 years ago, is a great accomplishment for this world, and deserves recognition in the sense that citizens not just in the United States, but in the World, can have access to information they never thought they could before. But with any great accomplishment, comes its downsides. Lots of information not just on the web, but on TV as well has bias information, and information that might not necessarily be true. In addition, it makes a person "more lazy" in obtaining information, and one might not strive to obtain that primary source information. Jackson does have a point that the internet can definitely benefit low-income youth, but at the same time, her study was so subjective, it really cannot predict whether easy access to information is a benefit or a drawback. Baurelein made some valid points as well. Students are focused on cramming information in their heads, and receiving it from websites, radios, or TV shows that might not be reliable. The result is a person who cannot think for themself or think analytically to the best of his or her potential. I do howevever believe that he is a bit of an alarmist, and I think that the easily accesible information in this day and age has more benefits than drawbacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment