Blackboards and chalk, or laptops and U.S.B. drives?

Technology is now being integrated in our school systems, and whether that is a good or bad thing is up for grabs. On one side you have Ohmann who thinks that this new way of teaching is a quick rich scam utilized by the government and schools. And Shaffer who feels the use of technology can help generate a good new way of learning. "…Towards a new model of learning through meaningful activity in virtual worlds as preparation for meaningful activity in our postindustrial, technology-rich, real world" (11.) Let’s look at one side of the issue here.
Ohmann sees technology as a means for the government and schools to make a person pay more money for something that really isn’t all that necessary. It’s bad enough that the more money you pay for school the better the degree, what does that show about the way government runs things, money is everything, is the underline story here. Don’t get Ohmann wrong here, technology is a good tool for people to use, and when used correctly it does have it’s great benefits, but when it comes down to it, that cost of all this new and “great” technology isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. "Technological determinism will serve us no better than e-phoria (a new word, meaning the giddy perception of technology as a genie that can bless all our desires” (5.) Ohmann presents a strong argument here, but lets further explore how Shaffer feels.
Contrary to how Ohmann views technology Shaffer sees technology, specifically video games as the new innovative way for students to learn in the classroom. He sees video games as a good way for students to learn about jobs in society and really get to know what it is that they say they want to be one day. He points out that certain games help kids work towards a goal and teach skills needed in the real world. And stresses that writing on the blackboard and taking notes by hand is a thing of the past, and the use of laptops and learning about issues can be taught through games. He feels strongly about the use of video games as a good learning tool, but at the same time he realizes that not all games benefit a child. There are games out there that teach violence and don’t help academically at all, and it’s up to each individual to decide which way is best.
My point here-that technology is a new and useful tool to be used in the classroom-should interest those who think old methods of teaching are better than the current ways. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point should speak to anyone who care about the larger issue of trying to get through to students who don’t always take so easily to taking notes and listening to lectures. A teacher is someone who reaches out to students and helps them understand material, and if the old ways aren’t working they should consider new innovative technology tools.

Over all, I didn’t even have a title, so that was an issue from the get-go. I added one which I thought was appropriate and liked the way it came out. in searching for the uses of metacommentary within this short essay, I was glad to see that it wasn’t hard to pick them out. I found a few that I had written already and of course went back and added a sentence or two to make it more clear what I was trying to get across.

pg. 97 # 2

Technology is now being integrated in our school systems, and whether that is a good or bad thing is up for grabs. On one side you have Ohmann who thinks that this new way of teaching is a quick rich scam utilized by the government and schools. And Shaffer who feels the use of technology can help generate a good new way of learning. "…Towards a new model of learning through meaningful activity in virtual worlds as preparation for meaningful activity in our postindustrial, technology-rich, real world" (11.)Ohmann sees technology as a means for the government and schools to make a person pay more money for something that really isn’t all that necessary. It’s bad enough that the more money you pay for school the better the degree, what does that show about the way government runs things, money is everything, is the underline story here. Don’t get Ohmann wrong here, technology is a good tool for people to use, and when used correctly it does have it’s great benefits, but when it comes down to it, that cost of all this new and “great” technology isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. "Technological determinism will serve us no better than e-phoria (a new word, meaning the giddy perception of technology as a genie that can bless all our desires” (5.)Contrary to how Ohmann views technology Shaffer sees technology, specifically video games as the new innovative way for students to learn in the classroom. He sees video games as a good way for students to learn about jobs in society and really get to know what it is that they say they want to be one day. He points out that certain games help kids work towards a goal and teach skills needed in the real world. And stresses that writing on the blackboard and taking notes by hand is a thing of the past, and the use of laptops and learning about issues can be taught through games. He feels strongly about the use of video games as a good learning tool, but at the same time he realizes that not all games benefit a child. There are games out there that teach violence and don’t help academically at all, and it’s up to each individual to decide which way is best.
My point here-that technology is a new and useful tool to be used in the classroom-should interest those who think old methods of teaching are better than the current ways. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point should speak to anyone who care about the larger issue of trying to get through to students who don’t always take so easily to taking notes and listening to lectures. A teacher is someone who reaches out to students and helps them understand material, and if the old ways aren’t working they should consider new innovative technology tools.

Technology Fusion

Technology is now being integrated in our school systems, and whether that is a good or bad thing is up for grabs. On one side you have Ohmann who thinks that this new way of teaching is a quick rich scam utilized by the government and schools. And Shaffer who feels the use of technology can help generate a good new way of learning. "…Towards a new model of learning through meaningful activity in virtual worlds as preparation for meaningful activity in our postindustrial, technology-rich, real world" (11.)
Ohmann sees technology as a means for the government and schools to make a person pay more money for something that really isn’t all that necessary. It’s bad enough that the more money you pay for school the better the degree, what does that show about the way government runs things, money is everything, is the underline story here. Don’t get Ohmann wrong here, technology is a good tool for people to use, and when used correctly it does have it’s great benefits, but when it comes down to it, that cost of all this new and “great” technology isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. "Technological determinism will serve us no better than e-phoria (a new word, meaning the giddy perception of technology as a genie that can bless all our desires” (5.)
Contrary to how Ohmann views technology Shaffer sees technology, specifically video games as the new innovative way for students to learn in the classroom. He sees video games as a good way for students to learn about jobs in society and really get to know what it is that they say they want to be one day. He points out that certain games help kids work towards a goal and teach skills needed in the real world. And stresses that writing on the blackboard and taking notes by hand is a thing of the past, and the use of laptops and learning about issues can be taught through games. He feels strongly about the use of video games as a good learning tool, but at the same time he realizes that not all games benefit a child. There are games out there that teach violence and don’t help academically at all, and it’s up to each individual to decide which way is best.

Is technology in school making students smart or dumb?

Technology is now being integrated in our school systems, and whether that is a good or bad thing is up for grabs. On one side you have Ohmann who thinks that this new way of teaching is a quick rich scam utilized by the government and schools. And Shaffer who feels the use of technology can help generate a good new way of learning. "Towards a new model of learning through meaningful activity in virtual worlds as preparation for meaningful activity in our postindustrial, technology-rich, real world" (11.)



Essay Outline
Focus on Ohmann's views on technology, pro and con.
>money involved
>class usage
Introduce Shaffer and how they both think alike, then switch to how Shaffer differs.
>video games pro

Are you really taking notes in class, or are you just chatting on a.i.m?

In the article "Computers and Technology" by Richard Ohmann, he makes it very clear that integrating the use of computers in the classroom is not all that great of an idea. How it is a great tool to have but at the same time it becomes difficult to set limits on while in class. If students are told to sit in class and pay attention, knowing they have the Internet at their disposal, they're not going to pay attention. Now more than ever students are taking class time to chat online, look at emails, and surf the web, as Ohmann puts it. So originally not only did these students have all the expenses of books, tuition, and other fees, add to the the cost of these computers.
Ohmann focuses on the idea that school costs a lot and everything revolves around money. He talks about tuition, and how it's essentially the amount of money you're giving a school, and in return they give you a credit which works towards a degree that you pay for. And the more money you cough up the more creditable the degree is worth.
I somewhat agree with Ohmann, I get what he's saying the whole, people aren't going to be focusing in class when they can be shopping online, or using aol. But at the same time, it's up to the person to decided how they want to use this opportunity. Do you want to waste your time in class, while you could be learning something valuable? I think that every student has the opportunity to do well in class, and if it's abused then it's their own fault and people as a majority should not have to be penalized for it. When it comes to the whole spending lots of money, I agree with Ohmann, the more you spend the more you degree will help you out. It's the society we live in. I also agree with him in that it's wrong that schooling can cost so much and expenses reach a point where they become ridiculous!

McDonalds or Subway

Fast food restaurants are every where, cheap and fills you up. So no wonder why kids turn to it for multiple meals a day. But at the same time there are so many other places to eat where the food is cheap and healthy. Subway is a perfect example of that, healthy, tasty, and fills you up. Places that aren’t even restaurants such as Walgreens or Jewel, sell healthy snacks that can be substituted for a meal and fill you up. There use to be only so many places to go to when someone needed food fast and cheap, but now there are so many places where you can find healthy and cheap food.
On the contrary it takes time to find places where cheap and healthy places sell food. It takes twice as long to look for a Subway then it does to find a Mcdonalds or Taco Bell. And because of the fact that Subway doesn’t have a drive through it’s faster to go to any other place. I understand why so many people turn to fast food as a quick meal, but to take it a step further and blame them for the reason why you put on so much extra weight is ludicrous. You can’t blame employees for giving you what you ask for. It’s called personal responsibility. Don’t blame others for your own actions. You don’t have to eat that double cheese burger, you can go to a Subway, or grab some fruit from a local deli. So when people say it’s these companies fault for making them fat it’s…well it shouldn’t even be brought up.

Friday's assignment

http://yourbiz.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/31/338537.aspx

This article talks about a reporter and how he noticed that there are so many illegal immigrants working, and what the government plans to do about it. The "They Say" in this article is that the government plans to take action about so many illegal immigrants taking the jobs of legal immigrants, the reporter has mixed feelings about it because he does think it is a good idea to give the jobs back to the legal immigrants at the same time though he feels sorry for the companies that employ the use of low waged payed workers.

http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/05/what_evacuation.html

This article talks about the hurricane Catrina that devastated small towns around the Golf coast, and other areas. It doesn't say the "They Say," instead it gives a likely report of what happened, but could be viewed differently. The reporter says that these towns were doomed from the get go, and not much was done to help these residents. The "They Say" is not implied and this article only addresses one side of the argument, that nothing was done to help these residents get out. The article I think is not that effective because of the fact that not both sides are presented, instead it's one sided and leaves the reader thinking, well there has to be another side of it, what is it, and, how much truth is actually in this article if views from the opposing side are not included?


This blog thing seems kinda fun, it'll be interesting to see if I continue to use it after the semester is done!