To begin, this article through me for a loop in its very first sentences. In the issue summary for Linda Jackson et al, it writes, “this work supports the optimism surrounding the Internet as a tool to level the educational playing field” (364). When we turn the page and looked at her introduction it says quite the opposite, “Roschelle and colleagues came to the less-than-satisfying conclusion that the findings are inconclusive” (366). Basically for the next couple of pages of her argument there is a lot of research that doesn’t necessarily prove anything, yet it doesn’t deny it. There are inclinations and some testimony along the way that children are affected in a positive way by the introduction of computers into their homes but really all it took was that first controversial sentence for me to ultimately wander why I was even reading any further.
As for Mark Bauerlein, he thinks that all of this technology is just making students less apt for intellectual advancement. He is concerned with whether “the ability to communicate equals a quality communication experience” (364). Throughout his article he makes it very clear that he feels right now we have a “nation of know-nothings who don’t read, follow politics, or vote - and who cant compete internationally” (364). I agree with him to a certain extent but the way I understand this is that many people choose not to keep up with real events in the world. They have access to this information just like everyone else but have no interest in it. You can’t just place the blame on everyone for that; you just have to make peace with the fact that that particular individual will not be up to speed with the rest of us. It is frustrating and makes us look naïve, but he/she has a right to the information they want and if it just so happens that none of it has to do with politics, well so be it.
