Sunday, September 30, 2007
Metacommentary: Does anyone honestly care?
I don't use too much metacommentary. I primarily stated the opinion of Stoll and Ohman, without too much of my own stuff to say. I suppose I could state that I disagree with what they have to say to some extent, though I find their arguments valid. Perhaps in order to revise it, I could mention more so that I find Stoll's and Ohman's points intriguing, yet I think they see the problem too much in a black-and-white sense.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Revision
When taking into consideration the fact that computers are inevitably a very essential part of each and every one of our lives, we can't lie to ourselves by saying that computers won't be making even larger advanements, thereby causing us to gain more of a dependence for them. However, in Stoll's article, he protests that computers should not and cannot replace good, old-fashioned books and an inspiring teacher. Ohman agrees that these computers are a bit of an issue ass well, but seems to look at it in a different light.
Stoll tells us that these computers discourage us with ADD-inducing flashing lights and pretty pictures that do nothing more than dull the senses and tune out original thought. Stoll feels outraged that librarians are becoming more and more obsolete, and libraries themselves are slowly being ripped apart from the inside out, due to the addition of computer modules in the libraries. With these additions, students who find themselves in need of research material stray away from convential book searching and jump straight to Google for all the answers to their difficulties. this avoidance of books causes a decrease in interest in reading. And what puzzles Stoll is that people would rather invest in 2 dozen computers then, say, a thousand books, or a new librarian for a year, when they all cost the same. Stoll thinks that the books would outlast the computers, and essentially causes a waste of funds. Ohman agrees that mass spending of funds on computers may be a bit of a waste, and does not see the benefit of such a trivial waste of money on a product that ultimately distracts the user, as well as gives the user a very simplistic tool for
plagiarism. However, he does mention that certain schools did manage to figure out a fairly decent medium by allowing teachers to have "kill switches" to turn off computers that are straying from the task at hand.
Honestly, so long as we're smart with how much we allow our students to do, I think computers could very well be a marvelous tool, as it opens up an infinite streaming of important information, as wel as a method of easily accessing important news and notes from class. While I do see, and agree with, Stoll's points as well as Ohman's, we shouln't fear technology without better understanding it first. Younger people find these new technologies far more comforting, and I believe if adults can better aquaint themselves, perhaps they too can appreciate its value.
Stoll tells us that these computers discourage us with ADD-inducing flashing lights and pretty pictures that do nothing more than dull the senses and tune out original thought. Stoll feels outraged that librarians are becoming more and more obsolete, and libraries themselves are slowly being ripped apart from the inside out, due to the addition of computer modules in the libraries. With these additions, students who find themselves in need of research material stray away from convential book searching and jump straight to Google for all the answers to their difficulties. this avoidance of books causes a decrease in interest in reading. And what puzzles Stoll is that people would rather invest in 2 dozen computers then, say, a thousand books, or a new librarian for a year, when they all cost the same. Stoll thinks that the books would outlast the computers, and essentially causes a waste of funds. Ohman agrees that mass spending of funds on computers may be a bit of a waste, and does not see the benefit of such a trivial waste of money on a product that ultimately distracts the user, as well as gives the user a very simplistic tool for
plagiarism. However, he does mention that certain schools did manage to figure out a fairly decent medium by allowing teachers to have "kill switches" to turn off computers that are straying from the task at hand.
Honestly, so long as we're smart with how much we allow our students to do, I think computers could very well be a marvelous tool, as it opens up an infinite streaming of important information, as wel as a method of easily accessing important news and notes from class. While I do see, and agree with, Stoll's points as well as Ohman's, we shouln't fear technology without better understanding it first. Younger people find these new technologies far more comforting, and I believe if adults can better aquaint themselves, perhaps they too can appreciate its value.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Synthesis
When taking into consideration the fact that computers are inevitably a very essential part of each and every one of our lives, we can't lie to ourselves by saying that computers won't be making even larger advanements, thereby causing us to gain more of a dependence for them. However, in Stoll's article, he protests that computers should not and cannot replace good, old-fashioned books and an inspiring teacher. Ohman agrees that these computers are a bit of an issue ass well, but seems to look at it in a different light.
Stoll tells us that these computers discourage us with ADD-inducing flashing lights and pretty pictures that do nothing more than dull the senses and tune out original thought. Stoll feels outraged that librarians are becoming more and more obsolete, and libraries themselves are slowly being ripped apart from the inside out, due
to the addition of computer modules in the libraries. With these additions, students who find themselves in need of research material stray away from convential book searching and jump straight to Google for all the answers to their difficulties. And what puzzles Stoll is that people would rather invest in 2 dozen computers
then, say, a thousand books, or a new librarian for a year, when they all cost the same. Stoll thinks that
the books would outlast the computers. Ohman agrees that mass spending of funds on computers may be a bit of a waste, and does not see the benefit of such a trivial waste of money
on a product that ultimately distracts the user, as well as gives the user a very simplistic tool for
plagiarism. However, he does mention that certain schools did manage to figure out a fairly decent medium by allowing teachers to have "kill switches" to turn off computers that are straying from the task at hand.
Honestly, so long as we're smart with how much we allow our students to do, I think computers could very well be a marvelous tool, as it opens up an infinite streaming of important information, as wel as a method of easily accessing important news and notes from class. While I do see, and agree with, Stoll's points as well as Ohman's, we shouln't fear technology without better understanding it first.
Stoll tells us that these computers discourage us with ADD-inducing flashing lights and pretty pictures that do nothing more than dull the senses and tune out original thought. Stoll feels outraged that librarians are becoming more and more obsolete, and libraries themselves are slowly being ripped apart from the inside out, due
to the addition of computer modules in the libraries. With these additions, students who find themselves in need of research material stray away from convential book searching and jump straight to Google for all the answers to their difficulties. And what puzzles Stoll is that people would rather invest in 2 dozen computers
then, say, a thousand books, or a new librarian for a year, when they all cost the same. Stoll thinks that
the books would outlast the computers. Ohman agrees that mass spending of funds on computers may be a bit of a waste, and does not see the benefit of such a trivial waste of money
on a product that ultimately distracts the user, as well as gives the user a very simplistic tool for
plagiarism. However, he does mention that certain schools did manage to figure out a fairly decent medium by allowing teachers to have "kill switches" to turn off computers that are straying from the task at hand.
Honestly, so long as we're smart with how much we allow our students to do, I think computers could very well be a marvelous tool, as it opens up an infinite streaming of important information, as wel as a method of easily accessing important news and notes from class. While I do see, and agree with, Stoll's points as well as Ohman's, we shouln't fear technology without better understanding it first.
Friday, September 21, 2007
In both Stoll's and Ohmann's article, The author's believe that computers cannot, and will not, replace teachers int he education world.
Outline:
Good side:
-Comps allow unlimited access to information
-They offer exciting ways to learn
Bad Side:
-Very easy to plagiarize
-Easy to get distracted
Thesis: With certain restrictions, the education system can definitely benefit from computer's involvement.
The two articles touch on the same ideas, but Ohmann's article tends to mention the business aspect of the computer shift more so, while Stoll is more looking at the future of this shift as far as how it will affect the classroom.
The two of them seem to say that the computer age in education is upon us, and we should be able to handle it.
Outline:
Good side:
-Comps allow unlimited access to information
-They offer exciting ways to learn
Bad Side:
-Very easy to plagiarize
-Easy to get distracted
Thesis: With certain restrictions, the education system can definitely benefit from computer's involvement.
The two articles touch on the same ideas, but Ohmann's article tends to mention the business aspect of the computer shift more so, while Stoll is more looking at the future of this shift as far as how it will affect the classroom.
The two of them seem to say that the computer age in education is upon us, and we should be able to handle it.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Comps....Good or bad?
As it is stated in "Computers and Technology," computers may be an important new tool for education at all levels. However, can these computers fully replace human teachers? This article believes that regardless of the new technology, a living, breathing person will still be a necessity. Computers are looked at in a positive light, in that they are able to present information in a manner that is more interesting to the average student than black and white textbooks. However, Computers do offer a bit of a distraction, as well as a simplistic tool for plagiarism. We must also consider the aspect of big business. Though computer companies will be brimming with joy at such a shift, companies involved with traditional school supplies such as books, pens and notebooks will note enjoy the loss of business.
I cannot say I would not love to replace all forms of reading and writing with this beautiful little device I'm typing on right now, but I will honestly admit that I will be OH SO tempted to have my attention stray from the subject at hand and right into my e-mail. I would say that it is definitely a feasible possibility, so long as certain restrictions are placed,
to keep the crafty people like me from gazing off into internet games or other complete wastes of
time.
I cannot say I would not love to replace all forms of reading and writing with this beautiful little device I'm typing on right now, but I will honestly admit that I will be OH SO tempted to have my attention stray from the subject at hand and right into my e-mail. I would say that it is definitely a feasible possibility, so long as certain restrictions are placed,
to keep the crafty people like me from gazing off into internet games or other complete wastes of
time.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Hidden Intellectualism Summary
In Gerald Graff's Hidden Intellectualism, Graff attests that intellect does not only exist in the scholarly form of thinking. Graff insists that knowledge can also take the form of "street smarts."
Graff uses his own experiences in his childhood to help form his argument. Graff tells about his disinterest in traditional academic subjects, and further elaborates on his love of sports. Growing up in Chicago, Graff suggests academic knowledge is a hindrance in social life, as anti-intellectualism ran rampant during his childhood, as it does today. Graff describes a saddening story of growing up torn "between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." An intolerance of superiority amongst the youth caused a sort of internal conflict of brain versus brawn. As Graff aged, the "brawn" side of this heated debate was victorious. Little did he know, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, arguments, generalizations, summaries and "other intellectualizing operations."
Due to the conversations involving his friends, Graff believes that "street smarts" overpower "book smarts"
Graff uses his own experiences in his childhood to help form his argument. Graff tells about his disinterest in traditional academic subjects, and further elaborates on his love of sports. Growing up in Chicago, Graff suggests academic knowledge is a hindrance in social life, as anti-intellectualism ran rampant during his childhood, as it does today. Graff describes a saddening story of growing up torn "between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." An intolerance of superiority amongst the youth caused a sort of internal conflict of brain versus brawn. As Graff aged, the "brawn" side of this heated debate was victorious. Little did he know, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, arguments, generalizations, summaries and "other intellectualizing operations."
Due to the conversations involving his friends, Graff believes that "street smarts" overpower "book smarts"
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Chomp on This
Ahh yes, another jewel we can proudly place on the crown we call American culture.
Obesity in children.
In David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater," David believes that, as ridiculous as it is that the obese in America are suing corporations for their plus-sized problem, we shouldn't entirely blame these people, as it is far more difficult to find a healthy alternative than to take the easy route and grab something from somewhere quick (and unhealthy).
Children nowadays have to make it through a bit of a fast food jungle out there, what with all those lovely plastic toys coming in their favorite McCholestorol's meal. However, it's not like America has grown totally unaware of this "growing" epidemic (which I say lightly, since it's nothing all too new). As obesity inflicts its sinful pleasure on our unsuspecting youth, so does
the ever-so-stealthy means of defeating those love handles. I speak, of course, of diet food. It's everywhere you go, even big food chains have caught on, for fear of being considered the cause
of the problem.
Even beyond that, there are PLENTY of ways for the modern-day kid to avoid a consistent intake of unhealthy foods. I am obviously addressing the parents when I say this, because it is up to them to teach their child good eating habits. They have to be able to teach children that salads are not necessarrily the end of the world. Even beyond that, you can always go the retro route and buy groceries and make your own healthy
meals. What with there being so many ways to access
new recipes through magazines,
cookbooks and the internet, it can't be that difficult to,
every once in a while, attempt to treat
your kid to something that won't kill him off 30 years down the road. It may not serve the
convenience that a Taco Bell meal may have, but you can rest assured that, unless your cooking
is lethal, you've done something to help keep your kid from becoming a statistic.
Now, if I may play devil's advocate (since I was instructed to do so), I'm going to throw the children, and yes, even the parents, a bone. I cannot totally blame them for everything. Times have changed, and that means that the world has quickened its pace. No time for casual walks,
no time to talk, no time to sit under a tree and read....no, no, no....there are soccer games to go to, homework to catch up on, musical rehearsal that started 10 minutes ago. There isn't any
time to preheat an oven, prepare the meat, unthaw the vegetables, and so forth. So when the only meal option from home to the little one's football game is the Wendy's down the street, what choice do we have? Nutrition takes far too long.
HOWEVER, when "Junior" has had one too many Frosty's, and realizes that it's a little more difficult than usual to make it to the 30 yard line than it used to be, he ultimately pays the price. Sometimes, parents see the easy solution to this complex epidemic and decide to go after the big, evil corporations for making gluttony so easily accessible through a drive-thru window.
My response is: What!?
How will punishing these companies bring justice to your plus-size offspring? How do you intend to spend not-so-hard earned money? It's common knowledge that fast food joints aren't intended to give the daily dose of vitamins and minerals, merely a quick fix to a rumbling tummy. Again, these parents should be wise enough to keep those "quick fixes" to a minimum, and let the child understand that it isn't smart to make a habit out of it.
Please, parents of America, hear my plea; be cautious of your diet, or else your "small fry" will become a "large fry"
before you realize.
-Anthony-
Obesity in children.
In David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater," David believes that, as ridiculous as it is that the obese in America are suing corporations for their plus-sized problem, we shouldn't entirely blame these people, as it is far more difficult to find a healthy alternative than to take the easy route and grab something from somewhere quick (and unhealthy).
Children nowadays have to make it through a bit of a fast food jungle out there, what with all those lovely plastic toys coming in their favorite McCholestorol's meal. However, it's not like America has grown totally unaware of this "growing" epidemic (which I say lightly, since it's nothing all too new). As obesity inflicts its sinful pleasure on our unsuspecting youth, so does
the ever-so-stealthy means of defeating those love handles. I speak, of course, of diet food. It's everywhere you go, even big food chains have caught on, for fear of being considered the cause
of the problem.
Even beyond that, there are PLENTY of ways for the modern-day kid to avoid a consistent intake of unhealthy foods. I am obviously addressing the parents when I say this, because it is up to them to teach their child good eating habits. They have to be able to teach children that salads are not necessarrily the end of the world. Even beyond that, you can always go the retro route and buy groceries and make your own healthy
meals. What with there being so many ways to access
new recipes through magazines,
cookbooks and the internet, it can't be that difficult to,
every once in a while, attempt to treat
your kid to something that won't kill him off 30 years down the road. It may not serve the
convenience that a Taco Bell meal may have, but you can rest assured that, unless your cooking
is lethal, you've done something to help keep your kid from becoming a statistic.
Now, if I may play devil's advocate (since I was instructed to do so), I'm going to throw the children, and yes, even the parents, a bone. I cannot totally blame them for everything. Times have changed, and that means that the world has quickened its pace. No time for casual walks,
no time to talk, no time to sit under a tree and read....no, no, no....there are soccer games to go to, homework to catch up on, musical rehearsal that started 10 minutes ago. There isn't any
time to preheat an oven, prepare the meat, unthaw the vegetables, and so forth. So when the only meal option from home to the little one's football game is the Wendy's down the street, what choice do we have? Nutrition takes far too long.
HOWEVER, when "Junior" has had one too many Frosty's, and realizes that it's a little more difficult than usual to make it to the 30 yard line than it used to be, he ultimately pays the price. Sometimes, parents see the easy solution to this complex epidemic and decide to go after the big, evil corporations for making gluttony so easily accessible through a drive-thru window.
My response is: What!?
How will punishing these companies bring justice to your plus-size offspring? How do you intend to spend not-so-hard earned money? It's common knowledge that fast food joints aren't intended to give the daily dose of vitamins and minerals, merely a quick fix to a rumbling tummy. Again, these parents should be wise enough to keep those "quick fixes" to a minimum, and let the child understand that it isn't smart to make a habit out of it.
Please, parents of America, hear my plea; be cautious of your diet, or else your "small fry" will become a "large fry"
before you realize.
-Anthony-
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Is a Video Game to Blame?
Dr. Phil Blames Video Games for Virginia Tech Shooting
First and foremost, I think it's important you know that I have believed, for quite some time now, that Dr. Phil is a schmuck.
As much as I do what I can to give everyone a break, I couldn't help but roll my eyes so far back in my head that it strained my optic nerves. Yet again, the media is taking a horrible situation and twisted it to further their own agenda. Dr. Phil believed that it was the V-Tech shooter's video game play that was the catalyst in this massacre. He believes that "if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society." He is associating the act of a single kid, who obviously had a few bolts in his head not quite screwed in tight enough, with the video gaming youth.
In response to this mind-numbing droll, blogger aniki21 replied with a very similar response as the one I declared. "Of course, rather than trying to address the problems of why they’re a sociopath or trying to help others with similar mental illnesses, it’s [e]asier to just pin the blame on the entertainment." Hey goes on to say that it wasn't video games that were truly the problem, it was the fact that the youth in question was, and I quote, "a f**king psychopath."
Come on, America. We're a little brighter than that. Yes, I'll admit violent people are prone to violent video games. However, pacifists can be attracted to them for completely opposite reasons. Video games offer the opportunity to release tension and strong emotion in a safe, controlled environment.
And hey, why didn't Dr. Phil mention anything about gun control? Gee whiz, even if it truly was video game's fault, he still was able to purchase a gun with which to kill these innocent people, correct? Hmmm... a bit selective with where we point the finger, aren't we Dr. Phil?
Trust me, America, there will be plenty more of this culture for me to rip on.
-Anthony-
First and foremost, I think it's important you know that I have believed, for quite some time now, that Dr. Phil is a schmuck.
As much as I do what I can to give everyone a break, I couldn't help but roll my eyes so far back in my head that it strained my optic nerves. Yet again, the media is taking a horrible situation and twisted it to further their own agenda. Dr. Phil believed that it was the V-Tech shooter's video game play that was the catalyst in this massacre. He believes that "if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society." He is associating the act of a single kid, who obviously had a few bolts in his head not quite screwed in tight enough, with the video gaming youth.
In response to this mind-numbing droll, blogger aniki21 replied with a very similar response as the one I declared. "Of course, rather than trying to address the problems of why they’re a sociopath or trying to help others with similar mental illnesses, it’s [e]asier to just pin the blame on the entertainment." Hey goes on to say that it wasn't video games that were truly the problem, it was the fact that the youth in question was, and I quote, "a f**king psychopath."
Come on, America. We're a little brighter than that. Yes, I'll admit violent people are prone to violent video games. However, pacifists can be attracted to them for completely opposite reasons. Video games offer the opportunity to release tension and strong emotion in a safe, controlled environment.
And hey, why didn't Dr. Phil mention anything about gun control? Gee whiz, even if it truly was video game's fault, he still was able to purchase a gun with which to kill these innocent people, correct? Hmmm... a bit selective with where we point the finger, aren't we Dr. Phil?
Trust me, America, there will be plenty more of this culture for me to rip on.
-Anthony-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)