- Commentary: Walker’s budget calls for schools to stop reporting sexual assaults
- Wallace hopes for redevelopment expansion
- Teravainen makes instant impact on return to ‘Hawks
- Oregon mayor reacts to Exelon talk of closing nuclear plant
- GiGi’s benefit for Down syndrome, March 21
- What’s the future hold for Rose?
- ‘Hogs keep pace in tight Midwest
- Qatar continues to confound
- Meet John Doe: Keep public notices in print
- Commentary: Rauner’s minimum wage plan just more of the same from GOP
Re: Communication skills
When I began my teaching career in the late ’60s, I wondered about the effects of divorce on student achievement. After just two or three months of classroom discussion and reading the students’ essays, I was able to witness a subtle change in certain students concerning creative and imaginative skills when compared to the others. I was actually able to pick out (without checking their records) the two or three teens who had been victims of divorce. These students had their family foundations shattered, and had much difficulty thinking
outside the box.
Psychologists in the ’70s and ’80s studying the effects of divorce on children corroborated this phenomenon, even going so far as to say that there is as much as a 10 percent drop in a child’s I.Q. when parents divorce. The results of this research were quickly hushed and dropped, especially as divorce increased.
My sister, Barb, who has worked as a middle-school social worker in suburban Chicago, has also noted an unfortunate change in the thinking skills of the students. She believes that cell phones are the culprits—all this twittering, instant messaging and texting doesn’t really challenge the mind. It used to be that when two students were marched into her office because of quarreling or fighting, she would sit them down facing each other. Asking them to vocalize the cause of their altercation and requiring them to work on a solution usually left the pre-teens satisfied, even if not too happy. Nowadays, when two pre-teens are sent to her office and are told to sit down, face one another and talk, they CANNOT. Face-to-face communication is too challenging. Using the Internet is actually pseudo communication.
A local columnist has stated that she has more than 100
that she e-mails. In a medium where one can assume any kind of false face to acquire the response one desires, this cannot be called genuine friendship. I wonder how often she sends the same message to many
This is insulting. As author Amy Tan has written,
E-mailing is just so much pond scum off the top of one’s head.
Where will our future deep and original thinking come from?
From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.