Deviants vs. Gamers

Computers are becoming more relevant in classrooms and life everyday, in Ohmann's and Shaffer's et al. articles, it is expressed that computers will alter the way students learn, but they disagree on whether it will boost or decrease educational value. There is no question on whether or not computers will change education and the way we learn, the question is whether it will help or damage the educational system.
In the articles, "Computers and Technology" by Ohmann and "Video Games and the Future of Learning" by Shaffer et al. the advantages of using technology are highlighted, but Ohmann exposes that the positive media portrayal isn't always accurate. It is described by Business Weekly that a New Jersey school “went from failure…to the highest scores…partly by becoming ‘one of the most wired’ urban school districts in the U.S” (Ohmann 2). But, if readers look at the footnote they quickly realize that a lot of other efforts were made in improving the school, not just computers, like portrayed. In other words, it isn’t just as easy as adding a computer for every five students that will boost education, school budgets, teacher training, and the arrangement of the school day also plays a large role.
On the other hand, Shaffer et al. seem to believe that technology will have a positive effect that won’t be fabricated by the media. They propose the idea of having video games based on the theories of learning that will allow students to “inhabit roles otherwise inaccessible to them” (Shaffer et al. 3). For instance, educational games would allow students to develop several skills, like: situated understanding, effective social practices, powerful identities, and shared values. Students would be able to explore virtual worlds and learn hands on in a sense. The virtual worlds would not be about memorizing definitions and facts, but about applying facts and definitions in the ‘real world’. Video games would help students learn, as Shaffer et al. suggests, “by doing something as part of a larger community of people who share common goals and ways of achieving those goals” (Shaffer et al. 5).
But, Ohmann claims that the priority of technological learning isn’t to increase educational value, but to increase capital in the world of economics, Ohmann uses colleges as an example, saying that computers have always come before they are exactly deemed useful. “Think about it: do any of you on college faculties…identified a curricular or pedagogical need, then realized…we could use computers to do that; let’s ask the president for some?” (Ohmann 3). The start of technology in classrooms came from the markets for profit, not from teachers for the betterment of learning, education has become a business. It has also taken away the prestige in many educational triumphs, by making it easier for students to plagiarize and “multitask their way though their M.B.A’s” (Ohmann 3).
Regardless of the outcomes, technology has already become a permanent fixture in the classroom. Ohmann can even find some positive in that, “it eases some work that we choose to do; enables some to do work they could not otherwise do at all…facilitates some kinds of libratory teaching; helps troublemakers organize against the WTO, GATT…lets deviants and subversives like us circulate counter propaganda fast; and so on” (Ohmann 5). For Shaffer et al, there is no question to the benefits and virtually no down side. The believe that technology will serve as a, “fundamentally grounded in meaningful activity and well aligned with the core skills, habits, and understanding of a postindustrial society” (Shaffer et al 8). It all depends on how the technology is going to be used that will determine the benefits in the world of academia.

Plan for Synthesis

Computers are becoming more relevant in classrooms and life everyday, in Ohmann's and Shaffer's articles, it is expressed that computers will alter the way students learn and the value of education.

Positives of Computers:

-increase in volunteerism and parent involvement (Ohmann)

-New Jersey school goes from failing to highest scores on state test (Ohmann)

-allow players in inhabit previously inaccessible roles (Shaffer)

-explore new identities (Shaffer)

-Madison 2200- urban ecology (Shaffer 8)

-Corporations profit (Ohmann)

Negatives of Computers:

-profibility uncertain/ educational results more uncertain (Ohmann)

-students tune out professors (Ohmann)

-multitask way through M.B.A. (Ohmann)

-computers there in large numbers but not well intergrated into classrooms (Ohmann 3)

-not all schools, students, parents know what to do with them (Shaffer 10)

-money going to computers (Ohmann)

-plagerism made easier (Ohmann)

Struggles:

-how to shape learning based on games and intergarate game based learning in schools (Shaffer 10).

Uses of Computers:

-email, record keeping, preparation of material, BUT not for planning (Ohmann 3)

-prepare for standardized test (Ohmann 3)

-social practicies [Sims Online] (Shaffer 4)

-become critical consumers of information (Shaffer 4)

-learn by doing (Shaffer 7)

-develop ways of thinking like lawyers, doctores, etc. (Shaffer 7-8)

-

Wired Schools Sparking Education

A revolution is beginning, as stated in Richard Ohmann's article, Computers and Technology. Schools are becoming more "wired" by depending on computers to boost the qualitiy of education in schools. In Colorado Springs, Roosevelt-Edison Charter School gave every student a computer in their home and volunterism and parent involvement soared. Another success story Ohmann mentions is a failing inner city school suppling all students with granted lab tops for classes and then becoming one of the highest testing schools for inner cities. But, besides mentioning the a few success stories, Ohmann's main point of this article is to shed light on the not so outstanding effects of computers and technological based education. "Thirty percent of college courses had websites a year a year and a half ago, and sixty percent used e-mail "as a tool for instruction", but only 14 percent of the administrators surveyed on this subject held that, "technology has improved instruction on mt campus" (Ohmann 2). That is less than half that found technology useful. Ohmann fears that too many schools are putting too great an emphasis on technology and computers and not enough on what exactly is being done with the computers, and instead of boosting educational value they are aiding in the diminsh of value in education.

I see both sides of the arguement, I believe that if used in moderation, technology can be very useful. By calling it a "revolution", I don't think they mean technology in moderation. But by going full out and suppling students with lab tops, the teacher gets zoned out because the students have access to just about anything at their finger tips. If used correctly technology can aide greatly, it can give easier research material, decrease the hassel of flipping through pages or even going to the library, but restrictions have to be set and the use in a school setting moniterd. There are educational sites that allow you to watch videos explaining complex functions of Earth or CD-roms that demonstrate the eruption of a volcanoes or the geo cycle. So if used correctly, technology can boost education, but if used constantly without diversity it will just give the temptation to play games instead of take notes on lectures.

Fast Food Companies Pulling a Fast One

In David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater" he argues that sueing fast food companies, may not be as rediculous as it is first percieved. He examines the circumstances surrounding the kids that eaten fast food to such an excess that they are obese and at health risks. It is mentioned that it is much easier to drive down any highway in America and find a fast food company then it is to find an affordable, quick healthy meal, or even a place to buy fruit. By explaining his own personal weakness with fast food, Zinczenko has a rather bias opinion when it comes to this topic. There are many healthier food options available, and claiming that you didn't know the nutritious facts is not a reasonable excuse to eatting fast food. Common sense tells a person that a greasy, quick meal is not as healthy as an apple, or fruit salad. There are many stores that sell all foods in bulk, take the time you would spend in the lunch line at Mc Donalds and go to the store and buy soups, fruit, vegatables, rise, etc. It just takes a little extra searching then looking for the golden arches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In "Don't Blame the Eater", David Zinczenko declares that fast food corporations should take responsibility for the obesity of their customers. He says that the restaurants don't probaly display the nutrional facts of the menu items and lead many customers astray by breaking their salads into pieces and serving a two and half serving dressing package. Though nutrional facts should be clearly displayed and easily understood for all customers, can you completely blame a fast food company for causing your obesity? What did you expect to happen when you dined on McDonalds, Burger King, and Taco Bell for all three meals of a day, that you would lose weight? Many factors go into making a person obese, not just stuffing their faces with greasy food. The companies are doing what any company would do, trying to make a profit. No matter how unhealthy their food is they aren't forcing you to eat there, maybe the consumer should take responsibility for themselves.

What they say about my safe place

http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ (A Safe Place)

In, A Safe Place, the writer opens with explaining where she got the idea from the topic from and addresses common initial reactions. She shortly states that at first the idea seems strange and shouldn't be taken seriously. Then she takes you through her thought process of it and offers some information that was cited in the first article about the guided imagery helping hospital patients to recover. The writer also explains connections between the mind and body very briefly.

In the next paragraphs she strays from the "they say" and describes her attempt at guided imagery. She explains her frustration with not being able to just let her mind relax and wonder.

At the very end of the passage she simply states that it, "Makes me smile and relax just writing about it."