I will start my discussion on Chapter 3 where Rachel has ended it by thinking about the last question that she poses on changing the way we view intelligence. This struck me most on page 94 when Bauerlein says, "they navigate the multimedia like pros...they know remarkably little about the wider world, about civics, history, math, science, and foreign affair...". At this part of the chapter, like Rachel has mentioned, I just wanted to ask, why can't we change what is considered intelligent? Intelligence and the categorizes that fall under it have been constructed from somewhere and if half of the population no longer fits the mold of what was considered intelligent, then why not restructure it? Or, do you think it has already changed except for some people beyond this generation who disagree with these differences?
On the topic of libraries and the elimination of books, I have different opinions than stated in this chapter. I do agree that library books seem more deserted than they had been before computers and other technology but this is because most often, on-line articles and sources have the most recent information. Looking at books from ten years ago, especially for a topic in college courses such as Psychology, will leave a student behind and have outdated information. I do understand, especially because I would rather read something on paper, the differences that concrete text and on-line information have but, I also can see advantages of the access and current availability that the internet offers.
Also, reading a little further Bauerlein mentions internet terminals in public libraries rising each year. Although the internet may not always be used as an educational tool, I feel as if it is a good thing that so many people are using libraries for something.
Towards the end of of the chapter Bauerlein references Johnson in saying that "screen time actually encourages more reading and writing, more inquiry and activism, more decision-making" (103). In my opinion, even recently, the inclusion of the screen in classrooms has encouraged more work in both reading and writing. Although contrary to Bauerlein's ideas, I do believe that internet and other technological advances have encouraged more learning, even if it be alternative to traditional classroom learning.
Overall, I would say that my biggest issue is that Bauerlein continues to say that our generation does less reading and thus makes us unintelligent when he does not even consider assigned reading into this category. His data continues to be skewed in my opinion because he leaves out such a huge proportion of the reading and writing done in our generation. As leisure reading goes down, I argue that assigned educational reading has gone up or at least has not been limited.
I thought I would add a computer advertisement to spice things up, since computers have played such a role in corrupting our generation, and all that follow...
...and to think something so small could have such a big effect. In my opinion, if you are receiving information and learning, why does it need to be in the form of paper in order to be considered valid?