Richtel, M. (2010). Growing up digital, wired for distraction. In Blau, S, & Burak, K. (eds). Writing In The Works. (349-357). Ebook: Cengage Learning.
In his article Growing up digital, wired for distraction, Matt Richtel uses the anecdotes of a few specific high school students and teachers in order to paint a picture of technology's effect on teenage students' educational capabilities. Richtel focuses heavily on the idea that although a focus on schooling and a focus on technology are mutually exclusive, school have no choice but to incorporate technology into their curriculum in order to appeal to students who are already addicted to technology, thus worsening the learning experience.
Richtel centers his entire article around the story of Vishal, a student who is finding trouble focusing on homework due to his interest in digital film-making. Vishal's story is used as both to make the author's argument convincing and interesting, while also providing a structural framework around which the article can be written. By bringing up Vishal's lowering grades, for example, the author is able to discuss what his teachers think, and what measures his school is taking to include technology while making sure that it does not become a distraction. Through Vishal's struggles with balancing work and school, the author makes generalizations about how other students are being affected by technology. In essence, Vishal becomes a symbol of America's increasingly distracted and technologically-inclined youth.
Since Richtel does not claim to be an expert on the subject of the interaction of youth with technology, he resorts to using Vishal's anecdotal stories as proof of a larger trend among American students. However, this leaves his argument poorly supported. One cannot make a generalization about an entire population based on the stories of a few children, which were hand-picked due to the technology-related issues they were having in school. In addition, the students interviewed live in Silicon Valley, one of the most technology-focused areas in North America. Without any proof that Vishal's story is indicative of the views of his demographic in general, the article comes across as speculative and even alarmist in its claims. This shows that the scope of the author's argument was too broad; while the evidence he collected would be sufficient in describing the technology-induced academic struggles that some Silicon Valley students undergo in daily life, he instead attempts to argue that the grades of students “across the country” are in danger due to their increased use of electronic media, a point which he ultimately cannot support.
While Richtel's article certainly flows nicely and is easy to read – thanks in part to the way it is divided into easily-digested sub-sections, -- it fails to present a strong case for the author's argument that technology is removing students' ability to focus on schoolwork. Vishal's story is interesting and thought-provoking, but it simply cannot be used as proof for such a broad claim, and the secondary sources used to support the author's argument are few and far between. Due to its weak argument and alarmist nature, I would not recommend this article to anyone.
