Learning Objects & Teaching Controversial Issues

Though the readings about controversial issues by Passe & Evans and Kelly were quite interesting and there is a ton to talk about there, (like what method of teacher participation, using those outlined by Kelly, we feel is most useful and why), I found myself focusing more on Susan Cramer's article than anything, mostly because of problems I had with it. The learning objects part of the article was interesting enough and offered a bit more understanding on what a learning object is, though I found myself more interested in the "21st Century Learning" part of the article. I personally have some issues with what she classifies under this title. I assumed it would mostly have to do with the integration of modern technology into classroom practices, and in many aspects it does, but then there are some things she calls "21st Century Learning" that just confuse me. For example, "Teaching and learning in a twenty-first-century context involves making content relevant to life outside of school [...]" I was unaware that this was a concept that only applied to a 21st-century way of thinking. I was under the impression that this has been a useful and ideal component of solid teaching for a while now. Admittedly, the higher levels of my own education took place almost entirely in the 21st century, so perhaps I am wrong here, but I am extremely hesitant to believe that no one before January 1, 2000 thought to themselves, "You know what would make my content more meaningful to my students? If I tried to connect it to their real lives outside of school!" Maybe that's not what Cramer is saying, but I still get the vibe from her article that she's presenting these ideas of "21st Century Learning" as if they are all some new-fangled, revolutionary ideas that absolutely no one has ever heard of before.
I also have a problem with her "Millennial Students" section. Though it offers some useful points--like how much the students rely on the internet in their personal lives and how little they get of it in school--her offered description of these students, (which admittedly comes from a 2000 article by Howe and Strauss), just struck me as bizarre: "They think it is cool to be smart and spend more time doing homework than watching television." While this may be true of some students, it is not the case for all of them, and unless I just utterly missed it, I never really saw a point where Cramer bothered to stop and say, "This, of course, does not apply to every student." She goes on to mention how students are prepped to go to the best schools by their parents and were raised in "soccer leagues", and again never mentions that this does not apply to every student. Generalizations are necessary in life in order to simplify things, but I feel this is a gross over-generalization, and one that may actually be a bit more favorable toward the students than the reality many teacher witness on a daily basis.
The relevance here for me as a teacher is to always be on the lookout for such generalizations as these and avoid making them myself. It's easy enough to pick out something that we notice about one student or a group of students and start assuming it applies to all of our students. This is easier for us, but it is not fair to clump all students together when they are each individual people with individual personalities and needs.