"Trust no-one over thirty!" Rather than 'teen talk' 2 an audience, why not invite the teens to see 4 themselves & then THEY can: tweet; blog:... or otherwise disseminate the information to their peers. Teens decide for themselves what is 'hawt' and the pronouncements of anyone over 30 will never be 'hawt' or as we used to say back on the '60s: "hip"!
Honestly, I get the thought behind writing that way, but I think it would turn off any kids or teens who are the sort who would ever go to any NASA-related site or post. When adults (even young adults) try to sound like a teen kids usually feel like they're being patronized, or else they just think the adult is trying too hard to be one of them again. The analogy that comes to mind is the parents of my friends who would dress in the same exact clothes that I would wear as a teen, it made me respect them less and feel sort of creeped out around them. Who wants to read a blog or post by someone who comes off as creepy?
Adults can't be teens and teens really want adults to be adult, even if they happen to think those adults are pretty cool. They also like to keep teen culture for themselves as much as possible.
invaderxan
· 1 month ago
omg... just omg! :|
Deborah Jack
· 1 month ago
This almost sounds like the South Park episode where the kids had to watch the anti-smoking presentation from the "Butt Out" group; "If you don't smoke, you can be just like US! WHOO!" And the kids were so horrified that they ran out and started smoking. The outreach is trying so hard to connect that they're missing the most important element of pedagogy- instruction without being condescending. The best teachers I had did not try to be one of the kids- they presented the information on a level we could understand without slang or talking down to us. We rose to meet the challenge. More Mythbusters than "Butt Out."
Waddell Robey
· 1 month ago
Well teen talk is great for teens talking with teens, it gives them their private language, but when they are being talked or written to they like to be considered as adults. Kids are bright and swift, they know when an author or speaker is trying to be one of them. Most resent this as hokey and a put down. Any intended message is pretty much discarded. I think Keith Cowing is right and NASA needs to use a different approach.
tweesdad
· 1 month ago
The substance of Mr. Alonso's blog post is fine - he's obviously enthusiastic about what he does and has an enjoyable and interesting job. He _should_ write blog entries about it.
But he should maybe take his own advice and attend a writing class, or at least have someone clean up his messy spelling and grammar (e.g. "hanger" instead of "hangar"). Well-written pieces never go out of style, but his contrived use of teen or tween-speak will read as very dated in just a few years' time.
Also he (or NASA 360) may be working on a false premise that good writing and speech habits are "alienating" to teenagers. I think not, they live in an adult world and can understand what adults are trying to tell them. I HOPE that no teen would reject a message just because someone uses good spelling, grammar, or diction.
Also, since Mr. Alonso is paid by NASA there is a certain expectation of professionalism in anything he produces - again because it might be referred to and archived later on. I agree with the poster who opines that teens need to come up to these "professional grade" standards if they are to succeed in life, as opposed to adults coming down to their trendy colloquialisms - which never works in any case.
Bente Lilja Bye
· 1 month ago
I'm not sure Ian, maybe WE are too old and do not understand 'other languages'. My experience from StumbleUpon is that using at least a very short and simple language gets you in touch with people who perceive me as more approachable. Based on the feed back from StumbleUpon using that silly and short language has made my audience getting in touch with the curiosity they had as kids and allow themselves to learn more about science - a topic they have learned is off their limits so to speak.
If you want to perhaps reach people who feel alienated by science in the first place, using a well known 'language' might make them feel more respected. Science is for the smart people - only, is what most with little or no academic back ground think. The language used by NASA that you refer to is directed to the younger generation. They are not stupid just because they use a different 'in correct language'. They are definitely more playful.
Both Keith, you and me are grown-ups (at least some of the time :-)) compared to the segment of the population NASA is trying to reach with their 'hai's. Science 2.0 represent a way of reaching segments of the population that does not normally take an interest in science - and particularly capture the younger generation of that untapped pool of people. We need all kinds as the war for money is getting tougher every day.
I fear what Keith is conveying is rather a dash of vanity. Maybe. :-)
I will actually talk about this at this fall's American Geophysical Union in San Fransisco. You should come and animate the discussion, Ian! :-)
All Comments
Rather than 'teen talk' 2 an audience, why not invite the teens to see 4 themselves & then THEY can: tweet; blog:... or otherwise disseminate the information to their peers. Teens decide for themselves what is 'hawt' and the pronouncements of anyone over 30 will never be 'hawt' or as we used to say back on the '60s: "hip"!
Adults can't be teens and teens really want adults to be adult, even if they happen to think those adults are pretty cool. They also like to keep teen culture for themselves as much as possible.
The outreach is trying so hard to connect that they're missing the most important element of pedagogy- instruction without being condescending. The best teachers I had did not try to be one of the kids- they presented the information on a level we could understand without slang or talking down to us. We rose to meet the challenge.
More Mythbusters than "Butt Out."
But he should maybe take his own advice and attend a writing class, or at least have someone clean up his messy spelling and grammar (e.g. "hanger" instead of "hangar"). Well-written pieces never go out of style, but his contrived use of teen or tween-speak will read as very dated in just a few years' time.
Also he (or NASA 360) may be working on a false premise that good writing and speech habits are "alienating" to teenagers. I think not, they live in an adult world and can understand what adults are trying to tell them. I HOPE that no teen would reject a message just because someone uses good spelling, grammar, or diction.
Also, since Mr. Alonso is paid by NASA there is a certain expectation of professionalism in anything he produces - again because it might be referred to and archived later on. I agree with the poster who opines that teens need to come up to these "professional grade" standards if they are to succeed in life, as opposed to adults coming down to their trendy colloquialisms - which never works in any case.
If you want to perhaps reach people who feel alienated by science in the first place, using a well known 'language' might make them feel more respected. Science is for the smart people - only, is what most with little or no academic back ground think. The language used by NASA that you refer to is directed to the younger generation. They are not stupid just because they use a different 'in correct language'. They are definitely more playful.
Both Keith, you and me are grown-ups (at least some of the time :-)) compared to the segment of the population NASA is trying to reach with their 'hai's. Science 2.0 represent a way of reaching segments of the population that does not normally take an interest in science - and particularly capture the younger generation of that untapped pool of people. We need all kinds as the war for money is getting tougher every day.
I fear what Keith is conveying is rather a dash of vanity. Maybe. :-)
I will actually talk about this at this fall's American Geophysical Union in San Fransisco. You should come and animate the discussion, Ian! :-)