One example of metacommentary I could add to my synthesis draft would be:
In “Computers and Technology,” Ohmann argues that epistemic games are crucial to training students to become ready for the workforce, while in “Who Needs Computers,” Stoll argues that computers are not fit for the classroom, and are ruining many methods of required teaching.
Another example of metacommentary I could add would be:
For example, in Full Spectrum Warrior, players can learn military strategy by experience, rather than by rote memorization, some critics believe this is more important than standard classroom learning.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Synthesis Paper Revision
Technology is perhaps the most important tool of our time. The vast majority of our population would not be able to make it through one day, let alone an hour without using a piece of technology. Whether it is a television, cell phone, or a computer, people would not make it. This technology has even made its way into the classroom, taking over most “normal” ways of teaching. Computers are replacing books, film, and even, to a degree, teachers. While items like email, and instant messaging, can be helpful, often time’s students resort only to email, and never actually talk to teachers. Many people even believe that with this technology, comes big corporate names, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, all large companies, that with the surge of technology, people argue that these companies are taking over the classroom. While other critics believe that, this use of technology and epistemic games in the classroom will benefit the student more than classic methods of teaching.
The use of these large corporations in the classrooms, takes some control from the teachers and school board, and gives it to these corporations. These corporations have control, because they control what we see and use through the technology. Many critics of putting technology in the classroom fear that with these large corporations present in classrooms will hurt students more than help them. Because these corporations can choose, what and how we learn it will replace perhaps the most important item of learning, the teacher. The reason that these corporations control what students learn, is because the large corporations like Microsoft and Google control our technology. Microsoft is the largest software manufacturer in the world, and with that power, they can do what they want with technology. Google is the largest search engine in the world, the can control what results a student gets when they make a search. With this kind of control, they can create students that are ready for the work force, only for one type of job, for example to work for Google or Microsoft. It does not leave many options for students. Many critics stay by the fact that the teacher is the most important tool for learning.
While many critics are against the use of technology in the classroom, there are clear benefits to it. Epistemic games place students into real life situations, to get practice for their occupations that they would otherwise not have, until on the work force. This kind of practice will change the way a student thinks, because in a standard classroom they are just taught the standard facts, but with the practice these games offer, they will cause the student to think outside of merely what they are taught. This kind of practice allows the student’s mind to grow and expand to meet the demands of his occupation. Many students would rather learn through video games than through rote memorization and not taking. The truth is that epistemic games would benefit students more that “normal” classroom learning. While a student sits in a classroom, he stops thinking about what he is learning, daydreams, thinks about what he is doing after school, etc., resulting in the student not learning much at all. Whereas, if the student were to be enthralled in an epistemic game, they would learn more. They would learn more because of the fact they would be interested in what they are doing, they would not daydream or think about other things, video games require a players, or a student in this case, constant attention, thus removing the challenge of staying focused.
Putting more of this technology would immensely help students when they need to go to the work force. However, caution needs to be held to make sure that corporations do not take over the classroom. As long as corporate control can be kept from the classroom, then the epistemic games and internet will improve teaching methods vastly. The shift from classic methods of teaching, to a technological approach, is needed, but caution needs to be taken.
The use of these large corporations in the classrooms, takes some control from the teachers and school board, and gives it to these corporations. These corporations have control, because they control what we see and use through the technology. Many critics of putting technology in the classroom fear that with these large corporations present in classrooms will hurt students more than help them. Because these corporations can choose, what and how we learn it will replace perhaps the most important item of learning, the teacher. The reason that these corporations control what students learn, is because the large corporations like Microsoft and Google control our technology. Microsoft is the largest software manufacturer in the world, and with that power, they can do what they want with technology. Google is the largest search engine in the world, the can control what results a student gets when they make a search. With this kind of control, they can create students that are ready for the work force, only for one type of job, for example to work for Google or Microsoft. It does not leave many options for students. Many critics stay by the fact that the teacher is the most important tool for learning.
While many critics are against the use of technology in the classroom, there are clear benefits to it. Epistemic games place students into real life situations, to get practice for their occupations that they would otherwise not have, until on the work force. This kind of practice will change the way a student thinks, because in a standard classroom they are just taught the standard facts, but with the practice these games offer, they will cause the student to think outside of merely what they are taught. This kind of practice allows the student’s mind to grow and expand to meet the demands of his occupation. Many students would rather learn through video games than through rote memorization and not taking. The truth is that epistemic games would benefit students more that “normal” classroom learning. While a student sits in a classroom, he stops thinking about what he is learning, daydreams, thinks about what he is doing after school, etc., resulting in the student not learning much at all. Whereas, if the student were to be enthralled in an epistemic game, they would learn more. They would learn more because of the fact they would be interested in what they are doing, they would not daydream or think about other things, video games require a players, or a student in this case, constant attention, thus removing the challenge of staying focused.
Putting more of this technology would immensely help students when they need to go to the work force. However, caution needs to be held to make sure that corporations do not take over the classroom. As long as corporate control can be kept from the classroom, then the epistemic games and internet will improve teaching methods vastly. The shift from classic methods of teaching, to a technological approach, is needed, but caution needs to be taken.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Synthesis Paper
Technology is perhaps the most important tool of our time. The vast majority of our population would not be able to make it through one day, let alone an hour without using a piece of technology. Whether it is a television, cell phone, or a computer, people would not make it. This technology has even made its way into the classroom, taking over most “normal” ways of teaching. Computers are replacing books, film, and even, to a degree, teachers. While items like email, and instant messaging, can be helpful, often time’s students resort only to email, and never actually talk to teachers. Many people even believe that with this technology, comes big corporate names, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, all large companies, that with the surge of technology, people argue that these companies are taking over the classroom.
The use of these large corporations in the classrooms, takes some control from the teachers and school board, and gives it to these corporations. These corporations have control, because they control what we see and use through the technology. Many critics of putting technology in the classroom fear that with these large corporations present in classrooms will hurt students more than help them. Because these corporations can choose what and how we learn it will replace perhaps the most important item of learning, the teacher. Many critics stay by the fact that the teacher is the most important tool for learning.
While many critics are against the use of technology in the classroom, there are clear benefits to it. Epistemic games place students into real life situations, to get practice for their occupations that they would otherwise not have, until on the work force. This kind of practice will change the way a student thinks, because in a standard classroom they are just taught the standard facts, but with the practice these games offer, they will cause the student to think outside of merely what they are taught. This kind of practice allows the student’s mind to grow and expand to meet the demands of his occupation.
Putting more of this technology would immensely help students when they need to go to the work force. However, caution needs to be held to make sure that corporations do not take over the classroom. As long as corporate control can be kept from the classroom, then the epistemic games and internet will improve teaching methods vastly. The shift from classic methods of teaching, to a more technological approach, is needed, but caution needs to be taken.
The use of these large corporations in the classrooms, takes some control from the teachers and school board, and gives it to these corporations. These corporations have control, because they control what we see and use through the technology. Many critics of putting technology in the classroom fear that with these large corporations present in classrooms will hurt students more than help them. Because these corporations can choose what and how we learn it will replace perhaps the most important item of learning, the teacher. Many critics stay by the fact that the teacher is the most important tool for learning.
While many critics are against the use of technology in the classroom, there are clear benefits to it. Epistemic games place students into real life situations, to get practice for their occupations that they would otherwise not have, until on the work force. This kind of practice will change the way a student thinks, because in a standard classroom they are just taught the standard facts, but with the practice these games offer, they will cause the student to think outside of merely what they are taught. This kind of practice allows the student’s mind to grow and expand to meet the demands of his occupation.
Putting more of this technology would immensely help students when they need to go to the work force. However, caution needs to be held to make sure that corporations do not take over the classroom. As long as corporate control can be kept from the classroom, then the epistemic games and internet will improve teaching methods vastly. The shift from classic methods of teaching, to a more technological approach, is needed, but caution needs to be taken.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Synthesis Activity
Thesis: In our present times, technology has become such an important and reliable source; you can even look at the benefits of epistemic gaming with respect to learning, but has this technology surge caused a corporate control of our classrooms?
1. With all the technology use in our classrooms today, it has given these companies control of our classrooms by choosing what and how we learn.
2. Using technology in forms like Epistemic Games has allowed us to give students a new way of thinking and a broader view of life, it challenges them by placing them in a brand new environment and gives them realistic tasks.
3. If teachers were to implant more technology in the classrooms such as Epistemic games, it would not only be a new creative way of teaching of students, but it would also let teachers get involved in the world of gaming and technology that this new generation lives in. However we can’t give companies the ability to control the future of our children.
1. With all the technology use in our classrooms today, it has given these companies control of our classrooms by choosing what and how we learn.
2. Using technology in forms like Epistemic Games has allowed us to give students a new way of thinking and a broader view of life, it challenges them by placing them in a brand new environment and gives them realistic tasks.
3. If teachers were to implant more technology in the classrooms such as Epistemic games, it would not only be a new creative way of teaching of students, but it would also let teachers get involved in the world of gaming and technology that this new generation lives in. However we can’t give companies the ability to control the future of our children.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
"Computers and Technology" Summary
In Richard Ohmann’s article, “Computers and Technology,” Ohmann describes how computers and technology are working their way into the classroom very quickly. These new technologies are replacing many things in the classroom such as textbooks, or even asking the teacher for help. Most students will now look up their question online or ask the teacher through email. Removing all contact with the teacher, except during the class hour. Most students do not find a use for any sort of reference book anymore, as all that information is available online, at it all can be found much quicker. While all these resources at the click of a mouse are very helpful and convenient, they can be very bad, as such resources make it simple to plagiarize. I definitely agree that the new technology being introduced to the classroom is making learning and researching much easier. Most students will not use a reference book from the library, unless required to. While it is good that the internet is revolutionizing learning, there is a lot of inaccurate information on the internet. While I believe that there should be tools used from technology, I do not think that they should replace teacher-student interaction. This is the most important part of learning, and it should not be replaced.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Hidden Intellectualism" Summary
In the article “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff explains that many people know someone who is “incredibly street smart” but that person does not do well in school, but Graff argues that street smarts are just as important as school smarts. To many people this is seen as a waste, and that this person should spend more time on their school studies than things in sports or popular culture. But Graff argues that schools should take these street smarts and channel them into good academic work. Graff also believes that to be able to have students read literature such as George Orwell; we need to first have the students read things that interest them, encourage them to dive deep into whatever their reading, forming an opinion and arguing their point. Allowing students to do such reading, Graff believes will cause the student to naturally gravitate to more intellectual readings, as they will want to argue points and form opinions.
Graff finds that sports, which are normally thought of as less intellectual as school, to be more intellectual than school. The fact that sports are full of arguments, debates, problems for analysis, and intricate statistics, makes it more compelling and intellectual than school. Graff implies that street smarts are more important than school smarts because they are more real, they are things that can be used in the real world. But the problem is, street smarts and school smarts need to be coupled together to work well. If you only have one or the other, it will not work well. But in the end Graff would rather have the student who can write an argument about a magazine article or something the student enjoys, and that it can be done well, than a student who writes an argument over Hamlet that has no real opinion either way.
Graff finds that sports, which are normally thought of as less intellectual as school, to be more intellectual than school. The fact that sports are full of arguments, debates, problems for analysis, and intricate statistics, makes it more compelling and intellectual than school. Graff implies that street smarts are more important than school smarts because they are more real, they are things that can be used in the real world. But the problem is, street smarts and school smarts need to be coupled together to work well. If you only have one or the other, it will not work well. But in the end Graff would rather have the student who can write an argument about a magazine article or something the student enjoys, and that it can be done well, than a student who writes an argument over Hamlet that has no real opinion either way.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Two Summaries of "Don't Blame the Eater"
Summary 1
In David Zinczenko’s article, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” Zinczenko argues that, while fast food restaurants, which are cheap and plentiful, but are unhealthy for the nation’s youth, there is no other option that is healthier and as cheap and convenient as fast food restaurants. I on the other hand tend to disagree. It is very easy to find healthier options that are just as inexpensive as fast food restaurants. It is very easy to walk into your neighborhood Jewel or Super Target and buy a pre-made turkey sandwich and an apple for about the same price as a fast food meal. These grocery stores are just as plentiful as the unhealthy fast food restaurants, and are just as easy to purchase food from. The foods bought from these grocery stores also have the nutrition facts printed right on them, so the consumer always knows what he is eating.
Summary 2
In David Zinczenko’s article, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” Zinczenko blames fast food companies for causing obesity in many youths around the nation. The fast food restaurants, which are the only option for many of today’s youths, are causing obesity. These fast food restaurants are the only option for youths whose parents are often at work during the day, so they fall victim to the trap of delicious, cheap, and convenient meals offered at the fast food restaurants. The problem is that most of these youths do not know the dangers of eating such meals on a regular basis, such as obesity, high cholesterol, and diabetes. The main problem is that the fast food companies are only there to make money, they do not care what happens to its consumers, and they know that people will continue to purchase their meals because it is cheap and fast. If people were truly educated about the nutrition of the meals, it might turn some consumers away looking for the healthier options
I agree with Zinczenko’s argument that fast food companies are causing obesity in many of today’s youths, but I do not believe that the lawsuits held against them will prove effective. Taking money away from a multi-billion dollar company is not going to have much of an effect, especially when looking at the amount of money these companies throw around on advertising. I feel that the only way to get these companies to change policies is to get the Food and Drug Administration involved. The FDA, which is a company that regulates food, dietary and many other parts of everyday life can easily instill policies upon these fast food companies that will require nutrition facts to be included on packaging in a simple manner, or to make them serve healthier options too. I do not feel that merely placing a lawsuit against a company with so much money will cause them to change anything.
Comparison of Summaries
In my first summary, I completely disagree with everything that Zinczenko says. While he argues that while fast food companies are unhealthy and cause obesity in many of today’s youths, they are really the only option that is cheap and convenient. The only parts that I summarize in my essay are the ones that I disagree with, because I felt it would be inefficient to write anything else from his article, because it is not relevant to my summary.
In my second summary, I agree with much of what Zinczenko says in his article, but I disagree with his solution to the problem. Because I agree with what he says, I summarize the vast majority of the article, unlike in my previous summary in which I only summarize with which I disagree with. I felt that because I agree with it all, it is all relevant to my summary and belongs in it. In addition, in my second summary, I disagree with a part of his article, where I explain why I disagree and what I think is the best solution to the problem.
While both these summaries summarize the same article, they are very different in their execution., In which one agrees completely but changes the solution, and one disagrees completely
In David Zinczenko’s article, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” Zinczenko argues that, while fast food restaurants, which are cheap and plentiful, but are unhealthy for the nation’s youth, there is no other option that is healthier and as cheap and convenient as fast food restaurants. I on the other hand tend to disagree. It is very easy to find healthier options that are just as inexpensive as fast food restaurants. It is very easy to walk into your neighborhood Jewel or Super Target and buy a pre-made turkey sandwich and an apple for about the same price as a fast food meal. These grocery stores are just as plentiful as the unhealthy fast food restaurants, and are just as easy to purchase food from. The foods bought from these grocery stores also have the nutrition facts printed right on them, so the consumer always knows what he is eating.
Summary 2
In David Zinczenko’s article, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” Zinczenko blames fast food companies for causing obesity in many youths around the nation. The fast food restaurants, which are the only option for many of today’s youths, are causing obesity. These fast food restaurants are the only option for youths whose parents are often at work during the day, so they fall victim to the trap of delicious, cheap, and convenient meals offered at the fast food restaurants. The problem is that most of these youths do not know the dangers of eating such meals on a regular basis, such as obesity, high cholesterol, and diabetes. The main problem is that the fast food companies are only there to make money, they do not care what happens to its consumers, and they know that people will continue to purchase their meals because it is cheap and fast. If people were truly educated about the nutrition of the meals, it might turn some consumers away looking for the healthier options
I agree with Zinczenko’s argument that fast food companies are causing obesity in many of today’s youths, but I do not believe that the lawsuits held against them will prove effective. Taking money away from a multi-billion dollar company is not going to have much of an effect, especially when looking at the amount of money these companies throw around on advertising. I feel that the only way to get these companies to change policies is to get the Food and Drug Administration involved. The FDA, which is a company that regulates food, dietary and many other parts of everyday life can easily instill policies upon these fast food companies that will require nutrition facts to be included on packaging in a simple manner, or to make them serve healthier options too. I do not feel that merely placing a lawsuit against a company with so much money will cause them to change anything.
Comparison of Summaries
In my first summary, I completely disagree with everything that Zinczenko says. While he argues that while fast food companies are unhealthy and cause obesity in many of today’s youths, they are really the only option that is cheap and convenient. The only parts that I summarize in my essay are the ones that I disagree with, because I felt it would be inefficient to write anything else from his article, because it is not relevant to my summary.
In my second summary, I agree with much of what Zinczenko says in his article, but I disagree with his solution to the problem. Because I agree with what he says, I summarize the vast majority of the article, unlike in my previous summary in which I only summarize with which I disagree with. I felt that because I agree with it all, it is all relevant to my summary and belongs in it. In addition, in my second summary, I disagree with a part of his article, where I explain why I disagree and what I think is the best solution to the problem.
While both these summaries summarize the same article, they are very different in their execution., In which one agrees completely but changes the solution, and one disagrees completely
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
They Say/I Say Example 1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070906/EDITORIAL/109060010/1013
In this article the author is showing what "They Say," in this case, Hillary Clinton's promise to not cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age, or privatize the taxpayer funded Social Security system. The author continues to explain what will happen if this promise were to happen. The author shows that if this were to happen, over a 75 year horizon, Social Security would have an obligation of $15.6 trillion dollars in present day dollars. So what the author is getting at is that if Hillary Clinton was able to carry out this promise, people under 35 will most likely not see any Social Security money.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bomber_thurssep06,1,6510396.story?coll=chi_breaking_500
The above article, about the six nuclear warheads that flew over the US, only shows what the author says, because of the fact that they do not know exactly how the warheads were allowed to fly within the US.
In this article the author is showing what "They Say," in this case, Hillary Clinton's promise to not cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age, or privatize the taxpayer funded Social Security system. The author continues to explain what will happen if this promise were to happen. The author shows that if this were to happen, over a 75 year horizon, Social Security would have an obligation of $15.6 trillion dollars in present day dollars. So what the author is getting at is that if Hillary Clinton was able to carry out this promise, people under 35 will most likely not see any Social Security money.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bomber_thurssep06,1,6510396.story?coll=chi_breaking_500
The above article, about the six nuclear warheads that flew over the US, only shows what the author says, because of the fact that they do not know exactly how the warheads were allowed to fly within the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
