Comments on: Dimming down – the intellectual ability of 14yr olds slipping

By: Rob McCrae

Rob McCrae — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:17:55 +0000

Hi Andrew – I actually read the same research on the BBC Education web site a few days ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7692843.stm) – interestingly on the same day I stumbled upon (literally!) this article http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1594112/studies_suggest_internet_use_alters_the_brain/index.html . I was drawn the the comment that “technology can accelerate learning and boost creativity” and that “…observed as they used the Web and found that experienced Internet users showed double the activity in areas of the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning as Internet beginners.”

Now, I think you’ve done a great job in questioning the validity of the comparison of 1976 with 2008. I actually decided that both articles were probably arguing the same point, just from different perspectives. Unfortunately for the UK paper, the tools that we have to assist with problem solving today were not even dreamt of in 1976 – so … What constitutes a complex problem in 2008 I suspect is dramatically different from what would have been a problem in 1976. Students today are interested in a vastly wider view of life than in 1976. (Have a look at the Generation WE videos Scott McLeod has added to his blog lately http://www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2008/10/generation-we.html) (OMG – I’ve just realised 76 is 3 years after I left school.)

I am still troubled by Ken Robinson’s comments that if 90+% of 3 year olds display high levels of creativity, and we’ve reduced that to around 3% of 15 year olds by the time they are that old, then something doesn’t fit.

The debate will rage on, I’m sure. Keep up your good blog though!

Rob

By: webdesign

webdesign — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:52:11 +0000

Thanks for your article

By: andrewch

andrewch — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:52:20 +0000

Hi Gilbert

Your comments about picking your nose remind me of great web site about validating information – http://www.dhmo.org/

You are right about Journalism needing a conflict and thats why the good news articles always feature at the end of the news hour.

thanks for the comment

By: Gilbert

Gilbert — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:06:26 +0000

Here comes the backlash! As the old structures are challenged there will be more ‘scientific data’ de-contextualised and sensationalised. Never forget journalists always need an inherent conflict within a story. If their readership sees change as dangerous, so correlation of data is then extrapolated to causation.

‘Picking your nose causes cancer’, don’t believe me? Ask anyone who has ever suffered from cancer if they picked their nose?

I wait in fear for the compound noun ‘Paedophile and social network learning advocate’ – I give it 12 to 24 months!

I think studies (the genuine data and findings) should always be interrogated, but I wouldn’t grace print or most broadcast media with a debate. Remember today’s front page headline based on lies is recanted in a column inch apology in 6 months, buried at the back of the paper amongst the adds for Botox and Georgian porcelain figurines