The Effects of Technology in the Classroom
In recent years there has been a rapid growth of technology in the classroom; but is that a good thing? This is a subject that should concern everyone. Today’s children will soon be the leaders of our country. Caring about education now is caring about our future. Would you want a president who spent his school days playing computers games instead of taking notes? The authors of “Computers and Technology” and “Who Needs Computers?” explore the idea of technology and its effectiveness in education. Clifford Stoll and Richard Ohmann are skeptical about incorporating technology into the classroom, as both authors believe in a more traditional way of learning.
Stoll and Ohmann believe computers make plagiarism easier. The authors say this is because copying and pasting from an internet site is much easier than copying out of a book or an essay that is in paper form. Both authors also argue that computers take away from reading and libraries. When is the last time a student used a book as a source of information for a school project or paper? Students find all the information they need on the web. Libraries are becoming obsolete. Another argument Stoll and Ohmann make is computers and technology take away from the teacher. Technology steals attention from the teacher. Ohmann points out in his essay that “students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages, check company Web sites, trade stocks, and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A.” In some instances technology removes all face-to-face contact between teacher and student. For example, there are many e-classes, or online classes, offered today. These classes allow students to complete an entire class online without ever meeting the teachers.
Some may argue that computers open up a whole new world of information to students. Stoll counters that by explaining that every schoolteacher he has met tell him that they do not lack information, rather they have “far too much information.” Others contest that computers teach a love of reading. Stoll claims this is not the case because most Web pages contain primarily graphics, not words. Ohmann and Stoll have debated with themselves the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. They have both come to the conclusion that although at first computers may seem like a valuable resource for the classroom, when looked into more closely, they are really more of a hindrance than a help.
I agree and disagree with Stoll and Ohmann’s views of technology in the classroom. Computers can, in fact, be very distracting, taking away from the teacher. Computers also make it easier to plagiarize and make libraries out dated. Having just argued the negative aspects of technology in the classroom, let us now turn our attention to the many positive aspects. Just as there are many arguments against the use of computers in education there are many arguments for it. For example, computers not only make things more convenient and faster, but they are also an important educational tool. Computers offer programs such as Microsoft Powerpoint to help put presentations together and Microsoft Excel to help organize data. The internet provides an abundance of information including educational videos that cannot be found in a library. Also, computers make it very easy to communicate with people all over the world which is something that can be used for educational purposes. Essentially, I am arguing that there are positives and negatives to incorporating technology in the classroom; but I think if it is used correctly and in moderation technology can be a very valuable resource in an educational setting.
I tried to insert metacommentary in the last paragraph where I talk about my opinion. I also added a title because I didn't have one.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Page 97 Exercise 2
In recent years there has been a rapid growth of technology in the classroom; but is that a good thing? This is a subject that should concern everyone. Today’s children will soon be the leaders of our country. Caring about education now is caring about our future. Would you want a president who spent his school days playing computers games instead of taking notes? The authors of “Computers and Technology” and “Who Needs Computers?” explore the idea of technology and its effectiveness in education. Clifford Stoll and Richard Ohmann are skeptical about incorporating technology into the classroom, as both authors believe in a more traditional way of learning.
Stoll and Ohmann believe computers make plagiarism easier. The authors say this is because copying and pasting from an internet site is much easier than copying out of a book or an essay that is in paper form. Both authors also argue that computers take away from reading and libraries. When is the last time a student used a book as a source of information for a school project or paper? Students find all the information they need on the web. Libraries are becoming obsolete. Another argument Stoll and Ohmann make is computers and technology take away from the teacher. Technology steals attention from the teacher. Ohmann points out in his essay that “students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages, check company Web sites, trade stocks, and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A.” In some instances technology removes all face-to-face contact between teacher and student. For example, there are many e-classes, or online classes, offered today. These classes allow students to complete an entire class online without ever meeting the teachers.
Some may argue that computers open up a whole new world of information to students. Stoll counters that by explaining that every schoolteacher he has met tell him that they do not lack information, rather they have “far too much information.” Others contest that computers teach a love of reading. Stoll claims this is not the case because most Web pages contain primarily graphics, not words. Ohmann and Stoll have debated with themselves the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. They have both come to the conclusion that although at first computers may seem like a valuable resource for the classroom, when looked into more closely, they are really more of a hindrance than a help.
I agree and disagree with Stoll and Ohmann’s views of technology in the classroom. Computers can, in fact, be very distracting, taking away from the teacher. Computers also make it easier to plagiarize and make libraries out dated. There are a few negative aspects of incorporating technology into learning, however there are positive aspects as well. Computers not only make things more convenient and faster, but they are also an important educational tool. Computers offer programs such as Microsoft Powerpoint to help put presentations together and Microsoft Excel to help organize data. The internet provides an abundance of information including educational videos that cannot be found in a library. Also, computers make it very easy to communicate with people all over the world which is something that can be used for educational purposes. Although there are a few negative aspects to incorporating technology in the classroom, I think if it is used correctly and in moderation technology can be a very valuable resource in an educational setting.
Stoll and Ohmann believe computers make plagiarism easier. The authors say this is because copying and pasting from an internet site is much easier than copying out of a book or an essay that is in paper form. Both authors also argue that computers take away from reading and libraries. When is the last time a student used a book as a source of information for a school project or paper? Students find all the information they need on the web. Libraries are becoming obsolete. Another argument Stoll and Ohmann make is computers and technology take away from the teacher. Technology steals attention from the teacher. Ohmann points out in his essay that “students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages, check company Web sites, trade stocks, and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A.” In some instances technology removes all face-to-face contact between teacher and student. For example, there are many e-classes, or online classes, offered today. These classes allow students to complete an entire class online without ever meeting the teachers.
Some may argue that computers open up a whole new world of information to students. Stoll counters that by explaining that every schoolteacher he has met tell him that they do not lack information, rather they have “far too much information.” Others contest that computers teach a love of reading. Stoll claims this is not the case because most Web pages contain primarily graphics, not words. Ohmann and Stoll have debated with themselves the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. They have both come to the conclusion that although at first computers may seem like a valuable resource for the classroom, when looked into more closely, they are really more of a hindrance than a help.
I agree and disagree with Stoll and Ohmann’s views of technology in the classroom. Computers can, in fact, be very distracting, taking away from the teacher. Computers also make it easier to plagiarize and make libraries out dated. There are a few negative aspects of incorporating technology into learning, however there are positive aspects as well. Computers not only make things more convenient and faster, but they are also an important educational tool. Computers offer programs such as Microsoft Powerpoint to help put presentations together and Microsoft Excel to help organize data. The internet provides an abundance of information including educational videos that cannot be found in a library. Also, computers make it very easy to communicate with people all over the world which is something that can be used for educational purposes. Although there are a few negative aspects to incorporating technology in the classroom, I think if it is used correctly and in moderation technology can be a very valuable resource in an educational setting.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Synthesis
Today’s rapid growth of technology in the classroom would lead most to believe it is a sure fire way of learning. The authors of “Computers and Technology” and “Who Needs Computers?” would disagree. Clifford Stoll and Richard Ohmann are skeptical about incorporating technology into learning. Both authors believe in a more traditional way of learning.
Stoll and Ohmann believe computers make plagiarism easier. The authors say this is because copying and pasting from an internet site is much easier than copying out of a book or an essay that is in paper form. Both authors also argue that computers take away from reading and libraries. When is the last time a student used a book as a source of information for a school project or paper? Students find all the information they need on the web. Llibraries are becoming obsolete. Another argument Stoll and Ohmann make is computers and technology take away from the teacher. Technology steals attention from the teacher. Ohmann points out in his essay that “students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages, check company Web sites, trade stocks, and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A.” In some instances technology removes all face-to-face contact between teacher and student. For example, there are many e-classes, or online classes, offered today. These classes allow students to complete an entire class online without ever meeting the teachers.
Some may argue that computers open up a whole new world of information to students. Stoll counters that by explaining that every schoolteacher he has met tell him that they do not lack information, rather they have “far too much information.” Others contest that computers teach a love of reading. Stoll claims this is not the case because most Web pages contain primarily graphics, not words. Ohmann and Stoll have debated with themselves the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. They have both come to the conclusion that although at first computers may seem like a valuable resource for the classroom, when looked into more closely, they are really more of a hindrance than a help.
Stoll and Ohmann believe computers make plagiarism easier. The authors say this is because copying and pasting from an internet site is much easier than copying out of a book or an essay that is in paper form. Both authors also argue that computers take away from reading and libraries. When is the last time a student used a book as a source of information for a school project or paper? Students find all the information they need on the web. Llibraries are becoming obsolete. Another argument Stoll and Ohmann make is computers and technology take away from the teacher. Technology steals attention from the teacher. Ohmann points out in his essay that “students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages, check company Web sites, trade stocks, and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A.” In some instances technology removes all face-to-face contact between teacher and student. For example, there are many e-classes, or online classes, offered today. These classes allow students to complete an entire class online without ever meeting the teachers.
Some may argue that computers open up a whole new world of information to students. Stoll counters that by explaining that every schoolteacher he has met tell him that they do not lack information, rather they have “far too much information.” Others contest that computers teach a love of reading. Stoll claims this is not the case because most Web pages contain primarily graphics, not words. Ohmann and Stoll have debated with themselves the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. They have both come to the conclusion that although at first computers may seem like a valuable resource for the classroom, when looked into more closely, they are really more of a hindrance than a help.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Synthesis Activity- Outline
Sources: “Computers and Technology” and “Who Needs Computers?”
The authors of “Computers and Technology” and “Who Needs Computers?” agree that incorporating technology into learning may not be the greatest idea.
Intro:
-Agreement that computers in classrooms are not necessarily the best idea.
Body:
-The areas in which the authors agree.
*Computers make plagiarism easier.
*Computers take away from reading.
*Computers take away from the traditional method of teaching (using an actual person to teach).
Conclusion:
-Wrap-up and re-state
The authors of “Computers and Technology” and “Who Needs Computers?” agree that incorporating technology into learning may not be the greatest idea.
Intro:
-Agreement that computers in classrooms are not necessarily the best idea.
Body:
-The areas in which the authors agree.
*Computers make plagiarism easier.
*Computers take away from reading.
*Computers take away from the traditional method of teaching (using an actual person to teach).
Conclusion:
-Wrap-up and re-state
Thursday, September 20, 2007
"Computers and Technology" Summary and Response
In his essay, “Computers and Technology,” Richard Ohmann issues a caution to schools and universities interested in investing in new technology, namely computers. Ohmann argues that even though there has been a huge movement toward integrating technology in the classroom in recent years, it might not be all that great of an idea. According to Ohmann there has been little evidence so far of students gaining achievement due to the use of technology. He explains that this is because technology is “not well integrated into curriculum and pedagogy.” Ohmann also informs us that many students tune out their professors when there is a computer in front of them. Students would rather e-mail or surf the web than listen to a professor. Teachers are also reluctant to use new technology due to the crashes, confusion, and breakdowns. Another issue with technology that Ohmann speaks about is student plagiarism. The internet makes it much easier for students to plagiarize than books do. Ohmann suggests that schools and universities make sure they understand the technology economically and historically, and are willing to work politically with, against, through, and around it before making big investments towards it.
I agree with Ohmann. Technology is pricey, and a risky investment if not checked into first. I can attest to some of the downfalls of bringing technology into the classroom. My senior year in high school the school I attended launched a “laptop initiative.” The program was designed to equip four classrooms with 30 or more laptops. I had two of my classes in “laptop rooms.” One was a math class, and the other a literature class. To be completely honest, the math class was an absolute joke. The entire hour everyone in the class would either be on Facebook, shopping online, e-mailing, or watching videos on Youtube. Our textbook and notes were online, so the teacher could never tell us to turn out laptops off. Finally in March, seven months after the program started, the school got smart and blocked sites such as Facebook and Myspace. That did not stop students from using proxies, though. On a better note, my literature class was not as bad as math. The teachers was very strict about what websites we could use and when. Also, we actually utilized the technology and learned a lot of new things from it. For example, we created podcasts which we posted to our school’s wiki (another thing my class created), we blogged, and before each book we read we would use the web to find a good biography of the author. In my opinion there are ups and downs to the use of technology in the classroom. As long as it is used in a controlled manner which benefits the students’ learning it is a good tool to have. However, I still agree with Ohmann in the fact that schools and universities should research technology and how they can use it at their institution before they make a hasty purchase.
I agree with Ohmann. Technology is pricey, and a risky investment if not checked into first. I can attest to some of the downfalls of bringing technology into the classroom. My senior year in high school the school I attended launched a “laptop initiative.” The program was designed to equip four classrooms with 30 or more laptops. I had two of my classes in “laptop rooms.” One was a math class, and the other a literature class. To be completely honest, the math class was an absolute joke. The entire hour everyone in the class would either be on Facebook, shopping online, e-mailing, or watching videos on Youtube. Our textbook and notes were online, so the teacher could never tell us to turn out laptops off. Finally in March, seven months after the program started, the school got smart and blocked sites such as Facebook and Myspace. That did not stop students from using proxies, though. On a better note, my literature class was not as bad as math. The teachers was very strict about what websites we could use and when. Also, we actually utilized the technology and learned a lot of new things from it. For example, we created podcasts which we posted to our school’s wiki (another thing my class created), we blogged, and before each book we read we would use the web to find a good biography of the author. In my opinion there are ups and downs to the use of technology in the classroom. As long as it is used in a controlled manner which benefits the students’ learning it is a good tool to have. However, I still agree with Ohmann in the fact that schools and universities should research technology and how they can use it at their institution before they make a hasty purchase.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Hidden Intellectualism
Summary:
In the essay ‘Hidden Intellectualism’, Gerald Graff expresses his concern for students who do not appear to be academically intelligent but succeed in other nonacademic fields. Since society has such a closed-minded view of intelligence, we don’t consider cars, dating, or TV as factors of intelligence. The author believes that students should pursue their nonacademic interests, in an academic way. Graff argues that schools and colleges are missing an opportunity to help students succeed, by pushing away theses nonacademic interests that could benefit the students. He believes, “Making students’ nonacademic interests an object of academic study is useful, then, for getting students’ attentions and overcoming their boredom and alienation…” Overall schools have a stereotypical view of intelligence, but need to realize that intelligence is not limited to book smarts.
Questions:
We used the template on page 14 to help us outline our summary. It seemed to work well, by keeping our thoughts organized. No we did not shift our strategy. Another strategy we could have used would be not to use a template. Two alternate purposes would be to agree or disagree. If we were to agree with Graff we wouldn’t have to revise the summary. To disagree we would have to state the summary and reasons why we disagree, backed up by examples.
In the essay ‘Hidden Intellectualism’, Gerald Graff expresses his concern for students who do not appear to be academically intelligent but succeed in other nonacademic fields. Since society has such a closed-minded view of intelligence, we don’t consider cars, dating, or TV as factors of intelligence. The author believes that students should pursue their nonacademic interests, in an academic way. Graff argues that schools and colleges are missing an opportunity to help students succeed, by pushing away theses nonacademic interests that could benefit the students. He believes, “Making students’ nonacademic interests an object of academic study is useful, then, for getting students’ attentions and overcoming their boredom and alienation…” Overall schools have a stereotypical view of intelligence, but need to realize that intelligence is not limited to book smarts.
Questions:
We used the template on page 14 to help us outline our summary. It seemed to work well, by keeping our thoughts organized. No we did not shift our strategy. Another strategy we could have used would be not to use a template. Two alternate purposes would be to agree or disagree. If we were to agree with Graff we wouldn’t have to revise the summary. To disagree we would have to state the summary and reasons why we disagree, backed up by examples.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
"Don't Blame the Eater" Summaries
Summary #1
In an essay, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” the author, David Zinczenko argues that childhood obesity today is much in part due to the lack of convenient and inexpensive food choices for children. Zinczenko suggests that many children are forced to eat at un-healthy fast food restaurants such as McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. because they cannot afford a healthier alternative. Although I understand where Zinczenko is coming from, I cannot say I agree with him. Subway, for example, is an inexpensive, healthy alternative to somewhere such as McDonalds. They advertise many different sandwiches that are under 7 grams of fat and offer bags of pre-sliced apples as a side dish. Another cheap, yet healthy option could be found at a grocery store. Grocery stores sell pre-made, pre-packaged salads, wraps, sandwiches and more which have the nutritional information right there on the package.
Summary #2
In an essay, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” the author, David Zinczenko, argues that children have the right to sue major fast food companies for “making them fat.” Zinczenko believes that fast food companies contribute to childhood obesity because their only concern is to make money, not how un-healthy the products they are selling are. According the Zinczenko children are looking for convenient, inexpensive places such as McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. to get their meals at. These children aren’t educated on the effects this food could have on them, for example diabetes, obesity, or cholesterol problems. I agree with Zinczenko that fast food companies are contributing to childhood obesity, although I don’t believe that suing the fast-food chains is the best solution. A better solution might be educating consumers about the risks of fast-food and teaching them about healthier alternatives.
In an essay, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” the author, David Zinczenko argues that childhood obesity today is much in part due to the lack of convenient and inexpensive food choices for children. Zinczenko suggests that many children are forced to eat at un-healthy fast food restaurants such as McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. because they cannot afford a healthier alternative. Although I understand where Zinczenko is coming from, I cannot say I agree with him. Subway, for example, is an inexpensive, healthy alternative to somewhere such as McDonalds. They advertise many different sandwiches that are under 7 grams of fat and offer bags of pre-sliced apples as a side dish. Another cheap, yet healthy option could be found at a grocery store. Grocery stores sell pre-made, pre-packaged salads, wraps, sandwiches and more which have the nutritional information right there on the package.
Summary #2
In an essay, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” the author, David Zinczenko, argues that children have the right to sue major fast food companies for “making them fat.” Zinczenko believes that fast food companies contribute to childhood obesity because their only concern is to make money, not how un-healthy the products they are selling are. According the Zinczenko children are looking for convenient, inexpensive places such as McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. to get their meals at. These children aren’t educated on the effects this food could have on them, for example diabetes, obesity, or cholesterol problems. I agree with Zinczenko that fast food companies are contributing to childhood obesity, although I don’t believe that suing the fast-food chains is the best solution. A better solution might be educating consumers about the risks of fast-food and teaching them about healthier alternatives.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Finding a "They Say" in an Online Article
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/09/06/opinion/letters/127648.txt
Summary: This was a letter to the editor in response to a previous letter to the editor. The woman who wrote this letter is expressing her opinion on how homosexuals should be treated. She believes everyone should be treated fairly and with respect. She also believes that homosexuality is not a choice that people make and that they should not be judged based on their sexual orientation or anything else for that matter.
They Say: The 'they say' in this letter comes from another letter to the editor (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/08/25/opinion/letters/127481.txt). In this letter a woman is clearly against homosexuality and even calls it "a distasteful and gross lifestyle." The woman in the responsive letter responds to that statement by saying that those "are words that would better describe the lifestyle of a child molester."
Summary: This was a letter to the editor in response to a previous letter to the editor. The woman who wrote this letter is expressing her opinion on how homosexuals should be treated. She believes everyone should be treated fairly and with respect. She also believes that homosexuality is not a choice that people make and that they should not be judged based on their sexual orientation or anything else for that matter.
They Say: The 'they say' in this letter comes from another letter to the editor (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/08/25/opinion/letters/127481.txt). In this letter a woman is clearly against homosexuality and even calls it "a distasteful and gross lifestyle." The woman in the responsive letter responds to that statement by saying that those "are words that would better describe the lifestyle of a child molester."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
