First off, the title of my synthesis paper is just synthesis, so it is a good bet that a reader would have no clue what it is going to be about. So my title is not an example of metacommentary. The only part of the paper that has a clear use of metacommentary, though weak, is the ending paragraph. This paragraph deals with "So what?" and "Who cares?". There are many parts of the paper that I could add metacommentary that would expand and strengthen the authors as well as my own arguments.
Examples-
At the end of the second paragraph: In other words, with the shift from hard sources, such as textbooks, to the hyperspeed of the internet, students aquire a need for information to be learned and transacted at a more instantaneous speed. This will have a dangerous affect since the brain is better at absorbing and retaining information when done at a more adequate pace, such as when done through books and other literary orientated devices.
Somewhere in the last paragraph: My point is not that we should completely banish technology from the classroom, but that we should be weary of letting it eclipse the true nature and necessities of education. Which to me, forever will be a teacher and students interacting and exchanging ideas through discussions.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Synthesis
Technology is inseparable from the modern world, finding its way into every aspect of our lives; from the heights of cyberspace to the depths of iPhones. Nothing being quite able to escape its grasp, technology has even found its way into the classroom. A fundemental question that needs to be asked is if techonology, especially computers, is a beneficial or cancerous addition to the classroom atmosphere? Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll, the authors of the two articles "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?", both agree that technology is not only a hinderance when it comes to education and the classroom, but is even universally destructive.
According to Stoll, computers are nothing more than a safe-haven for plagarism. The temptation to just copy and paste websites and the unlimited amount of information at your fingertips is almost too much to bare. Not only this but computers isolate students instead of incorporating them into class discussions, as has been the traditional standard of teaching for hundreds of years. And because of the constant barage of images from computers and other picture orieneted devices, the emphasis on reading and books undoubtedly plumets.
None of these obvious facts seem to occur to the superintendents of public schools in America though. With the belief that technology is an all-mighty, all-powerful and all-wonderful addition to the classroom, schools pour out more and more of their budgets into the hands of major corporations. This is what Ohmann is most hesitant about. The fact that with technological devices being privatized by big corporations, these companies will not only be able to decide how education will be taught, but what will be taught as well.
These interpretations challenge the beliefs of those critics who have long assumed that technology will be a wonderful addition to the classroom. And ultimately, what is at stake here is the future of education, which in a way means the future since people gather their skills that they will use later in life at school. These arguments should also be read by every parent, since it is extremely important that they are aware what their children are learning at school and how they are learning it.
According to Stoll, computers are nothing more than a safe-haven for plagarism. The temptation to just copy and paste websites and the unlimited amount of information at your fingertips is almost too much to bare. Not only this but computers isolate students instead of incorporating them into class discussions, as has been the traditional standard of teaching for hundreds of years. And because of the constant barage of images from computers and other picture orieneted devices, the emphasis on reading and books undoubtedly plumets.
None of these obvious facts seem to occur to the superintendents of public schools in America though. With the belief that technology is an all-mighty, all-powerful and all-wonderful addition to the classroom, schools pour out more and more of their budgets into the hands of major corporations. This is what Ohmann is most hesitant about. The fact that with technological devices being privatized by big corporations, these companies will not only be able to decide how education will be taught, but what will be taught as well.
These interpretations challenge the beliefs of those critics who have long assumed that technology will be a wonderful addition to the classroom. And ultimately, what is at stake here is the future of education, which in a way means the future since people gather their skills that they will use later in life at school. These arguments should also be read by every parent, since it is extremely important that they are aware what their children are learning at school and how they are learning it.
Synthesis Activity
Articles- "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?"
Thesis- Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll, the authors of the two articles "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?", both agree that technology is not only a hinderance when it comes to education and the classroom, but is even extremely destructive.
Intro- Quick overview of the two author's main points.
Body:
-computers make it easier to plagarize.
-de-emphasizes the importance of reading.
-abandons the standard tradition of teaching.
-business and politics behind school's spending on technology.
Conclusion- Wrap everything up.
Thesis- Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll, the authors of the two articles "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?", both agree that technology is not only a hinderance when it comes to education and the classroom, but is even extremely destructive.
Intro- Quick overview of the two author's main points.
Body:
-computers make it easier to plagarize.
-de-emphasizes the importance of reading.
-abandons the standard tradition of teaching.
-business and politics behind school's spending on technology.
Conclusion- Wrap everything up.
"Computers and Technology"
The article "Computers and Technology" is a response to the rapid escalation of technology in the classroom and the belief that this integration is solely positive. The author of the essay Richard Ohmann argues that technology, especially computers, is not only overhyped, but is an actual destructive force to education. He says that the internet just makes it easier for students to plagarize and is a source of distraction in the classroom. But his biggest qualms with technology in the classroom are the economics and politics behind it. He makes a list saying, "education is big business, education is for business, business calls the political tune, and business is privatizing whatever it can." Since technology is being privatized by big corporations, and since many schools are putting more and more of their money into technology, these big corporations not only have an effect on how education will be taught, but what it will teach as well.
Overall I agree with Ohmann's article, even though I don't have quite as an alarmist view of technology as he does. Sure it has made it easier for information to be obtained and shared, sure it can be a distraction, and of course there should be the concern of the economics behind it, but even with all that I still believe that technology, in the classroom and outside, can be extremely useful and productive. And ultimately technology is here to stay, so it is more wise to try to figure out not how to keep it out of the classroom, but how to best incorporate it.
Overall I agree with Ohmann's article, even though I don't have quite as an alarmist view of technology as he does. Sure it has made it easier for information to be obtained and shared, sure it can be a distraction, and of course there should be the concern of the economics behind it, but even with all that I still believe that technology, in the classroom and outside, can be extremely useful and productive. And ultimately technology is here to stay, so it is more wise to try to figure out not how to keep it out of the classroom, but how to best incorporate it.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Hidden Intellectualism"
In the essay “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff argues that schools and colleges are missing an opportunity when they only focus on what they believe to be “intellectual” subjects, dismissing subjects they deem “non-intellectual.” These include subjects such as cars, clothing, sports and TV. The reason Graff believes this, is the fact that students must get interested in education themselves; it cannot be forced onto them. So if these so-called “non-intellectual” subjects were welcomed into the classroom, instead of brushed aside, there would be a lot of students who would have much more incentive to participate, which in turn would have a grass-roots effect. By this I refer to his quote that, “It’s a good bet that if students get hooked on reading and writing by doing term papers on Source, they will eventually get to [John Stuart Mill’s] On Liberty.”
Yet, this is not to further the gap between so-called academic and non-academic subjects. As Graff makes clear, by using his own childhood as an example, the subject’s schools and colleges deem non-academic often not only equal the academic subjects, but can even surpass them. When he was a child in the 1950’s, he read all the sport’s magazines instead of Plato and Shakespeare. Then he and his friends, the "hoods," would have arguments, discussions, debates etc. on everything to do with sports. It was from these interactions that Graff learned "how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation with others." Meanwhile, school was much more solitary, isolating and to Graff even "unreal." In a way, the curriculum in the classroom was only the statistical part of his sports education, lacking the communal aspects, the fun, and the inner laying truth.
Graff's point does make sense when the purpose of education is examined closely. After all, a school's job is not to turn out a group of students who all think the same and have the same interests. Not everyone likes Plato, Shakespeare and Aristotle. The objective of a school is to involve all of their students, and in order to do this the kids need to be interested in the subject. So instead of alienating kids from education by only forcing onto them subjects that they have zero interest in, schools and colleges need to embrace these "non-intellectual" and "non-academic" subjects into the classroom. The result would be more kids included in classroom discussions and with a better attitude and outlook towards education.
Yet, this is not to further the gap between so-called academic and non-academic subjects. As Graff makes clear, by using his own childhood as an example, the subject’s schools and colleges deem non-academic often not only equal the academic subjects, but can even surpass them. When he was a child in the 1950’s, he read all the sport’s magazines instead of Plato and Shakespeare. Then he and his friends, the "hoods," would have arguments, discussions, debates etc. on everything to do with sports. It was from these interactions that Graff learned "how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation with others." Meanwhile, school was much more solitary, isolating and to Graff even "unreal." In a way, the curriculum in the classroom was only the statistical part of his sports education, lacking the communal aspects, the fun, and the inner laying truth.
Graff's point does make sense when the purpose of education is examined closely. After all, a school's job is not to turn out a group of students who all think the same and have the same interests. Not everyone likes Plato, Shakespeare and Aristotle. The objective of a school is to involve all of their students, and in order to do this the kids need to be interested in the subject. So instead of alienating kids from education by only forcing onto them subjects that they have zero interest in, schools and colleges need to embrace these "non-intellectual" and "non-academic" subjects into the classroom. The result would be more kids included in classroom discussions and with a better attitude and outlook towards education.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Pg. 38 Exercise 2
In his article "Don't Blame the Eater," David Zinzenko stresses more than once that fast-food restaurants are the only affordable option for teenagers in America. He says, "Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I guarantee you'll see one of our country's more than 13,000 McDonald's restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit." Though I agree that fast-food restaurants are in abundance in this country, I feel it is absurd to claim that there are no affordable, convenient and healthy alternatives. There are healthy food stores such as Wild Oats which are opening all across the country. On top of that, there is some form of a grocery store in every town in America, and healthy meals can be bought there at affordable prices if picked out correctly. So even though it might take a little longer than pulling up to a window, there are healthy affordable meals for teenagers in America, if they only take the extra time and responsibility to choose them.
David Zinczenko mentions an alarming fact in his article "Don't Blame the Eater," that Type 2 diabetes has increased since 1994 from 5 percent to 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in the United States. Then there is the fact that McDonalds and Burger King spend $1 billion each year on advertising; a large portion of that aimed directly at kids such as Ronald McDonald, happy meals and the playgrounds that accompany the restaurants. There are many other examples along this line and when added up it is clear that fast-food restaurants play a substantial role in youthful obesity. Though I agree with David Zinczenko on that part of his argument, where we disagree is on his belief that bringing lawsuits against the companies is a legitimate response to the problem. He believes parents of the obese children suing the companies will be a useful tool in bringing awareness to the unhealthiness of fast-food. I disagree. I see that as merely people looking for personal gain without any intention of changing the fast-food companies. The way to combat these corporations is by joining together to force them to put the nutritional information on their products, spreading awareness of the health risks in eating their food, and by educating children much more on what food is good for them to put in their bodies.
David Zinczenko mentions an alarming fact in his article "Don't Blame the Eater," that Type 2 diabetes has increased since 1994 from 5 percent to 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in the United States. Then there is the fact that McDonalds and Burger King spend $1 billion each year on advertising; a large portion of that aimed directly at kids such as Ronald McDonald, happy meals and the playgrounds that accompany the restaurants. There are many other examples along this line and when added up it is clear that fast-food restaurants play a substantial role in youthful obesity. Though I agree with David Zinczenko on that part of his argument, where we disagree is on his belief that bringing lawsuits against the companies is a legitimate response to the problem. He believes parents of the obese children suing the companies will be a useful tool in bringing awareness to the unhealthiness of fast-food. I disagree. I see that as merely people looking for personal gain without any intention of changing the fast-food companies. The way to combat these corporations is by joining together to force them to put the nutritional information on their products, spreading awareness of the health risks in eating their food, and by educating children much more on what food is good for them to put in their bodies.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
"The Surge Has Been Completely Useless"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-surge-has-been-comple_b_63111.html
I found this blog on The Huffington Post by Cenk Uygur titled, "The Surge Has Been Completely Useless." It clearly uses the they say/I say method since its opening paragraph declares, "It's maddening how effective Bush administration propaganda is. They say the surge has been working. They repeat it a million times. Then they get a couple of their cronies inside think tanks, who are paid to say how great they are, say the surge is working. Then they get a couple of generals, who were promoted to say how great they are, say the surge is working. And voila, all you hear in the news is how well the surge is working." The next paragraph the author then says how he feels about the surge, "This so-called surge is a disaster, with zero results. Yes, I said zero."
I agree with the author's view. This is because what everyone seems to be forgetting about the surge is that it was never supposed to be a military tactic but a political one. The ultimate goal of the surge was to secure a stable Iraqi government. This has not happened. The Sunnis have left the government, and the remaining politicians are still on vacation. Yes, there has been a decrease in insurgent violence in areas such as Al Anbar province. No one is arguing with that. America does have the greatest army in the world, so it is to be expected when an increase in our troops are deployed to a certain area. The problem is that we are not fighting an army in the traditional sense. This isn't World War II where it was obvious that the Nazis were evil people, and they had an army that we would have to defeat in order to end their reign. In Iraq, we are fighting militia groups with no central unity, and because of this we will never be able to truly defeat them. It's like a game of Whac-a-Mole. We lower the violence and opposition in one area, and it just pops up in another. The time has come to admit that we will never outlast the insurgents. These are people who are still arguing over who was supposed to inherit Muhammad's throne 1400 years ago. Plus, we don't have the amount of troops it would take to keep the surge going. Some of our troops are on their 5th deployment already. Our enemies don't have this problem. In many areas across the Middle East young boys are brainwashed from an early age and raised to fight for groups such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, among many other fundamentalist terror groups.
It's because of all of this that it has become even more clear that the War in Iraq was never a military battle in the first place. It was always a diplomatic one. But because of poor strategy the Bush Administration believed that America would be welcomed as liberators. And here we are again being led to believe that there is hope in this quagmire we got ourselves into. Over the past couple of years the government has kept trying to make believe that there is an end in sight. It's sad that they are doing it again and everyone seems to be falling for it. General Petraeus is going to give his report (through the White House speech staff of course) in two weeks, and he will say things are getting better and that we just need six more months. And people will fall for it, and in six months it's going to be another false hope that dupes the American public into allowing more time and casualties for an un-winnable conflict.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_re_au_an/bush_bad_day_at_theater_1
This article I found on Yahoo News doesn't use the they say/I say method. The writer does talk about what Bush said at the forum, but he doesn't contrast that with something he is saying. He is just simply restating Bush's gaffes and explaining the context they were said in. Even though it is obvious that the author is not a pro-Bush guy, he actually keeps himself out of it. Maybe he realized Bush's mispronounciations were so bad, that he didn't need to comment on them to make the point.
I found this blog on The Huffington Post by Cenk Uygur titled, "The Surge Has Been Completely Useless." It clearly uses the they say/I say method since its opening paragraph declares, "It's maddening how effective Bush administration propaganda is. They say the surge has been working. They repeat it a million times. Then they get a couple of their cronies inside think tanks, who are paid to say how great they are, say the surge is working. Then they get a couple of generals, who were promoted to say how great they are, say the surge is working. And voila, all you hear in the news is how well the surge is working." The next paragraph the author then says how he feels about the surge, "This so-called surge is a disaster, with zero results. Yes, I said zero."
I agree with the author's view. This is because what everyone seems to be forgetting about the surge is that it was never supposed to be a military tactic but a political one. The ultimate goal of the surge was to secure a stable Iraqi government. This has not happened. The Sunnis have left the government, and the remaining politicians are still on vacation. Yes, there has been a decrease in insurgent violence in areas such as Al Anbar province. No one is arguing with that. America does have the greatest army in the world, so it is to be expected when an increase in our troops are deployed to a certain area. The problem is that we are not fighting an army in the traditional sense. This isn't World War II where it was obvious that the Nazis were evil people, and they had an army that we would have to defeat in order to end their reign. In Iraq, we are fighting militia groups with no central unity, and because of this we will never be able to truly defeat them. It's like a game of Whac-a-Mole. We lower the violence and opposition in one area, and it just pops up in another. The time has come to admit that we will never outlast the insurgents. These are people who are still arguing over who was supposed to inherit Muhammad's throne 1400 years ago. Plus, we don't have the amount of troops it would take to keep the surge going. Some of our troops are on their 5th deployment already. Our enemies don't have this problem. In many areas across the Middle East young boys are brainwashed from an early age and raised to fight for groups such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, among many other fundamentalist terror groups.
It's because of all of this that it has become even more clear that the War in Iraq was never a military battle in the first place. It was always a diplomatic one. But because of poor strategy the Bush Administration believed that America would be welcomed as liberators. And here we are again being led to believe that there is hope in this quagmire we got ourselves into. Over the past couple of years the government has kept trying to make believe that there is an end in sight. It's sad that they are doing it again and everyone seems to be falling for it. General Petraeus is going to give his report (through the White House speech staff of course) in two weeks, and he will say things are getting better and that we just need six more months. And people will fall for it, and in six months it's going to be another false hope that dupes the American public into allowing more time and casualties for an un-winnable conflict.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_re_au_an/bush_bad_day_at_theater_1
This article I found on Yahoo News doesn't use the they say/I say method. The writer does talk about what Bush said at the forum, but he doesn't contrast that with something he is saying. He is just simply restating Bush's gaffes and explaining the context they were said in. Even though it is obvious that the author is not a pro-Bush guy, he actually keeps himself out of it. Maybe he realized Bush's mispronounciations were so bad, that he didn't need to comment on them to make the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)