Guest lecturer perspective: modern students are absolutely atrocious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Calkins and “new math”, everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Calkins and “new math”, everybody.

Uh, presumably this is qualitative data moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I think you are being unfair to ants. They are quite focused and diligent. 😄

But seriously I believe your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Calkins and “new math”, everybody.

Uh, presumably this is qualitative data moron.

You missed the point. Which is unfortunately not surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Calkins and “new math”, everybody.

Uh, presumably this is qualitative data moron.

Also, I question OP's methods of data collection. People may have lied, or given half truths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the lecture is the same as it was a decade ago, I assure you that you are in fact boring the crap out of these kids. They know more already than kids used to, as they have access to the latest research at their fingertips, took college classes in high school, and most have done independent research. They need you to speed up the chat and make it interesting. Kids can respond to you text before you finish hitting send (I really don't know how they do that).

LOL. This is like saying a kid knows his multiplication tables because he owns a calculator.

Our society is doomed.

No, it isn't what I'm saying at all.

Using your math facts/calculator analogy; I'm saying its like they've known the math facts since PreK because they had access to technology that successfully instilled it in their little brains so it became second nature, but you are still giving them rhyming songs and games to learn math facts in 3rd grade. And your songs and games bore them.

I'm not saying they can just research things quickly if they need to know it; I'm saying they already did, so they already know it. They are taking in a lot more information every day than you seem to realize, and a lot faster than we did when we had to figure out which book, find it, check it out of the library and read it. By the time old school figures out which book to get, new school already read it and located counter sources and wrote a paper on it.

NP memorization is a HUGE part of brain development. It's very necessary.

lol ok are you over 50?

No, maybe do some research before you post such intelligent retorts as "lol"

here is a start:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-memorizing-things-though-a-lost-art-isnt-a-waste-of-time

did you memorize that website?

I memorized plenty in my life which only served me well. More than you can say judging by your responses.

same thing, you don't memorize things that are not important or can be looked up so you just embarrassed yourself boomer, now pdf an email

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

Have you seen what ants do?

They're smarter than these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Calkins and “new math”, everybody.

Uh, presumably this is qualitative data moron.

You missed the point. Which is unfortunately not surprising.

I'd love to hear your lecture, Ms. Pedant. Not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

Yes. You have. And the reason why is literally right in front of you (DCUM and the laptop/phone).

[Anonymous]

Students have been on the decline for over 2000 years!

[Anonymous]

20 years ago there were rules and punishment now we have no rules no punishment and the kids have devices that encourage cheating and videosgames instead of paying attention. Principals blame and fire the teachers for this dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20 years ago there were rules and punishment now we have no rules no punishment and the kids have devices that encourage cheating and videosgames instead of paying attention. Principals blame and fire the teachers for this dynamic.

I swear this is exactly what people were saying when I was a kid.....40 years ago. Only it was TV instead of video games. But people were saying how kids were so much worse, and they were cheating and lying, and everything was so much better before. Don't people ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

I agree with the pp here. Going off 13yo data is not wise. Nothing ages that well.

Honestly, I have trouble listening through most lectures. I don't think that I've changed for the worse since 2010. I'm not going to appear rapt, but I get what's important.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Calkins and “new math”, everybody.

Uh, presumably this is qualitative data moron.

Also, I question OP's methods of data collection. People may have lied, or given half truths.

DP: There are dozens of disciplines that use qualitative research methods and they have also sorts of established methods for addressing these concerns. People can lie on surveys even easier. When you have long interviews, multiple observations, artifact analysis it's much easier to track inconsistencies in evidence and note them and follow up and find out. No idea whether original article is solid or not as I haven't read it, but sample size is not the way you judge. If it's in a decent scholarly journal peer reviewers and editorial board will have assessed the methods. If it's in a crap journal the findings would be less likely to taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Parenting and family structure has also been and is on the decline. I feel this is more of the corrolatory cause of youth crime, violence, and mental health consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parenting and family structure has also been and is on the decline. I feel this is more of the corrolatory cause of youth crime, violence, and mental health consequences.

That's what has changed in the last 5 years? That's the difference?