I Met A Comma named Terry

As the human race progresses into the future, more and more high-tech things emerge, altering our way of life. Technology happens to be something that sky-rockets. Many new technological advances appear year after year. Nowadays, computers are a regular. We use them at home, at work, at school, and every place in between. The question now is, are computers something that should be readily available for students in the classroom setting? Are they truly important and necessary or do they create a hindrance of learning? In an essay written by Clifford Stoll called "Who Needs Computers," he argues computers for educational purposes "often do more harm than good (Stoll 1)." Through research and studies, Stoll found that the use of computers enables students to shut off their brain, and stare at screens rather than be interactive with a teacher and stimulate different emotions through learning. It is important that through learning, we gain the ability to inspire confidence and trust, something that would be very difficult to accomplish with computer screens. The internet cannot teach us to stand up and speak in front of others, make tough decisions on our own, and teach confidence. At first glance, one would think the use of technology for educational purposes should be limited, but surprisingly, even the higher authorities such as the president has been urging to "wire up" schools across the nation. Stoll also noted how easily students could copy and paste others' work and commit the plagiarism crime. Technology is rapidly advancing, however, Stoll believes it is something that needs to stay away from education.In another essay written by David Shaffer called "Video Games and the Future of Learning," Shaffer takes on a different approach to the advancement of technology. He claims video games in the school setting "have the potential to change the landscape of education as we know it (Shaffer 11)." According to Shaffer, video games engage the players in new worlds, inhabiting and becoming these characters. This is something that could otherwise not occur. Players are able to understand complex concepts and develop situated understanding while gaining a knowledge of shared values that are essential in life. This outlook on video games has already made an impact on special groups of people. The U.S. Army has taken these ideas and incorporated them into their training, using military games to introduce civilians to military ideology. The only obstacle standing in the way of using video games for educational purposes in the classroom are those who are stuck in the "old fashioned" way, those who see it only as a hindrance and distraction, similarly to Stoll. With the growing age of technology, will computers and video games make an important impact on schooling or will they only create more controversy and distractions?It is hard to say which side is the "correct" side. On one had, having computers readily available for students is very important because of the vast exploration and research opportunities. There are innumberable websites and learning devices that could be found on the web that greatly aid in learning. Also, the easy mode of communication between professors and students makes connecting much easier. I believe the internet should be available to students, but in a modified manner. In other words, the internet can be very beneficial to the education system. There are however many distractions associated with the internet that could take away from a student's learning. In moderation, the internet is important. As far as video games, I feel these should be part of the moderation that we "moderate." In my eyes, video games are for pure leisure and are something kids glue their eyes to the screen when they arrive home from school. Most games that kids engage in are the bloody, gory kind that have no educational value at all. If schools begin telling children to go play these video games, what are they going to think? It will be defacing education and we will see a major decline in the quality of education. Essentially, I am arguing that technology in small amounts is good for students. Yes, we are living in a world filled with grand technological advances, but let's try to keep the educational system free of it, at least for as long as possible.

Computers? Yes? No?

As the human race progresses into the future, more and more high-tech things emerge, altering our way of life. Technology happens to be something that sky-rockets. Many new technological advances appear year after year. Nowadays, computers are a regular. We use them at home, at work, at school, and every place in between. The question now is, are computers something that should be readily available for students in the classroom setting? Are they truly important and necessary or do they create a hindrance of learning? In an essay written by Clifford Stoll called "Who Needs Computers," he argues computers for educational purposes "often do more harm than good (Stoll 1)." Through research and studies, Stoll found that the use of computers enables students to shut off their brain, and stare at screens rather than be interactive with a teacher and stimulate different emotions through learning. It is important that through learning, we gain the ability to inspire confidence and trust, something that would be very difficult to accomplish with computer screens. The internet cannot teach us to stand up and speak in front of others, make tough decisions on our own, and teach confidence. At first glance, one would think the use of technology for educational purposes should be limited, but surprisingly, even the higher authorities such as the president has been urging to "wire up" schools across the nation. Stoll also noted how easily students could copy and paste others' work and commit the plagiarism crime. Technology is rapidly advancing, however, Stoll believes it is something that needs to stay away from education.
In another essay written by David Shaffer called "Video Games and the Future of Learning," Shaffer takes on a different approach to the advancement of technology. He claims video games in the school setting "have the potential to change the landscape of education as we know it (Shaffer 11)." According to Shaffer, video games engage the players in new worlds, inhabiting and becoming these characters. This is something that could otherwise not occur. Players are able to understand complex concepts and develop situated understanding while gaining a knowledge of shared values that are essential in life. This outlook on video games has already made an impact on special groups of people. The U.S. Army has taken these ideas and incorporated them into their training, using military games to introduce civilians to military ideology. The only obstacle standing in the way of using video games for educational purposes in the classroom are those who are stuck in the "old fashioned" way, those who see it only as a hindrance and distraction, similarly to Stoll. With the growing age of technology, will computers and video games make an important impact on schooling or will they only create more controversy and distractions?
It is hard to say which side is the "correct" side. On one had, having computers readily available for students is very important because of the vast exploration and research opportunities. There are innumberable websites and learning devices that could be found on the web that greatly aid in learning. Also, the easy mode of communication between professors and students makes connecting much easier. I believe the internet should be available to students, but in a modified manner. There are many distractions involved with the internet that could take away from a student's learning. In moderation, the internet is important. As far as video games, I feel these should be part of the moderation that we "moderate." In my eyes, video games are for pure leisure and are something kids glue their eyes to the screen when they arrive home from school. Most games that kids engage in are the bloody, gory kind that have no educational value at all. If schools begin telling children to go play these video games, what are they going to think? It will be defacing education and we will see a major decline in the quality of education. Yes, we are living in a world filled with grand technological advances, but let's try to keep the educational system free of it, at least for as long as possible.

Synthesis

Statement
In both articles concerning computers in the classroom setting, the authors argue that the presence of computers do not help the advancement of learning.

Outline
Benefits of computers
-Communication between students and teachers
- Make research fast and vast
- Aid in assignments

Disadvantages of computers
- Plagiarism
- Very "robotic". no life is put into it
- Aid in many distractions

Both Stoll and Ohmann are opposed to computers in the classroom. Their arguements are similar in that they do not like the use of technology for educational purposes. The two essays have very closely-related passages even though their reasoning is slightly different. Both authors understand that it is inevitable that technology is going to appear in the classroom, however, they want teachers to limit how much is used and available to the students.

We Love Technology

As we progress further and further into our future, new, more modern things emerge into our vision. We look back 50 years ago and think it would have been impossible to send a message via cyber space, now it being a regular thing. Technology is advancing so rapidly and taking other realms with it. The education system is now beginning to depend more and more on the use of computers and the internet. Richard Ohmann argues in his essay "Computers and Technology" that computers in the school setting can have positive effects, but at the same time create problems. Yes, computers make assignments and communication between professors and students more accessible, but they also make way for easy distractions, and even bigger problems, plagiarism. It is inevitable that technology will keep appearing more and more in schools, but how much is too much?

Richard Ohmann brings up valid points about computers interefering with education. I believe it is important for students to have access to computers and the world wide web for research purposes and communication. The web is a boundless place filled with room for immense exploration and I myself enjoy using Google to search various topics. It is very useful in aiding with school assignments. However, I also agree with Ohmann that there are also many wrong doors students can enter on the web. This day and age there are so many sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and AOL that can take away from the classroom focus. Perhaps having certain availability to specific sites could help this situation. In the end, it is important students have computer access.

"Hidden Intellectualism"

Gerald Graff believes that we have underestimated many of our fellow human beings. In his essay "Hidden Intellectualism" he contests that students apathetic (and seemingly hopeless) in the classroom will flourish in a setting where their personal interests and skills are used to cultivate their academic potential. To go even further, these apathetic students may contain a wealth of knowledge and skills that may not be present in the more classically bookish student. Graff illustrates this through a personal experience when he says, "It was in these discussions with friends about toughness and sports, I think, and in my reading of sports books and magazines, that I began to learn the rudiments of the intellectual life." Inspired by his life outside of school, he fine-tuned his ability to argue academically. Furthermore, when students lack interest in a topic, they'll only produce bland, uninvolved work. The test of a true intellectual is to bring life to even the least highbrow subject. Graff proposes that schools will benefit from providing this gateway between students' personal interests and future academic ventures.

Double-Sided Tape

pg. 38 Ex. 2

#1 According to David Zinczenko, fast-food restaurants are to blame for the increasing obesity problem in America. He made this clear in "Don't Blame the Eater" where he questioned "where consumers, particularly teenagers, were supposed to find alternatives." Clearly, he forgot to take into consideration that America is booming with all sorts of eating establishments. Yes, fast-food makes up a large percent of these restaurants, but one cannot slip away from the fact that these are not the ONLY places to satisfy one's hunger. Zinczenko claims the availability and costliness of healthier eating hinders consumers choices and nudges them towards fast-food. Have we forgotten all together about home-cooked meals? And when was the last time a double cheeseburger, super-size fries, and large pepsi was cheaper than a simple frozen dinner from the grocery store? The last time I checked, there was a Jewel or some other type of grocery store in every town, just as there are McDonald's. From there, it is up to the consumer as to which way they'll go.

#2 In "Don't Blame the Eater," by David Zinczenko, fast-food restaurants are to blame for the youthful obesity. They do not provide the proper health information for each item on the menu, and if there happens to be any, it is rather deceiving, tricking the consumer into thinking they're eating fewer calories when actually it is doubled. With these fast-food chains popping up all around America on every corner of the street, and with their extreme availability and cheaper prices, consumers, teenagers especially, are drawn to them. This is a serious problem indeed, however, bringing lawsuits against these companies doesn't seem to be the proper solution. In the end, it is the people's choice where they eat. No one is forcing them to go the unhealthy path. Although the restaurants are rather luring in their advertisements, they do not control the decisions consumers make...that is unless they are using subliminal messaging. That's a whole other story.

They Say...but...I Say This.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070905/OPINION02/70904033/1053

Cole James, a senior at Antioch high school wrote a letter of opposition to the writer of an article titled "Pro athletes not being good role models." He felt it was not fair to lable all professional athletes as not adequate role models because of three football players who made wrong decisions. To bring down every professional athlete because of three players is wrong. The writer of the article was creating a false stereotype.
I agree with Cole in his response to the author. In fact, I believe professional athletes in general are great role models for younger people because they can see what hard work and dedication can do.