Sunday, September 30, 2007

In other words, metacommentary.

As technology continues to advance, computers become more and more apart of everyones' lives. Computer provide fast information in a convenient and easy process. Stoll believes that a computer cannot replace books or a convincing teacher. Ohman also believes that computers are overrated for the classroom, but takes a separate viewpoint of Stoll. Ohman focuses more so on the business aspect and the industry forcing the sale of computers on school systems.
Stoll tells us that computers feed the user nonsense and entertainment instead of providing an alternative research method. He is convinced that computer are no more helpful than the nonsense involved in filmstrips. He sees both technological advancements "of dubious educational value." In other words, he believes learning does not take place through technology but through interaction of student and teacher. If computers took over completely, then the institution of school and interaction between students would be lost. Stoll also presents the idea that plagarism is easier with computers. It shows students to use a "copy-and-paste attitude" when approaching research and papers. Stoll cannot accept the new wave, or should I say, present wave of technology, because he believes teachers are the only adequete way to get information to the youth. Richard Ohman feels the same way as Stoll does about computers, but not for the same reasons. He believes the integration of the computer is due to "expansionism on the part of capital." More or less, technology is being pushed onto schools across the country due to the profit in big business. The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.' Consumers are being tricked into buying what they believe helps, when in reality households are spending too much money on an unsubstantial technology. He shares Stoll's opinion that computers are more of a distraction in class than a benefit.
Unfortunately for these two gentlemen, computers are going to be apart of schooling from here on out. And whether you hate it or love it, everyone should learn to embrace it. Essentially, I am arguing that society has accepted the computer as a academic advancement. Computers, for the expenses and confusion that they cause, truly do have benefits in a students work environment. Internet and email makes communication extremely simple. Not only can a student contact their teacher at any time, but parents have the opportunity to contact an elementary school teacher when necessary. Computers also ready students for the real world. Even more important, most jobs in the world today are becoming computer-based and a student should understand the technology necessary for their life. These are life skills that should be developed early on. Information has also become more readily available due to the advancement of the internet. Students are able to cite sources much more easily than sitting in a library and searching through hundreds of books. Computers may be a distraction, but either way they are here to stay.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

So what?! Who cares?!?! (Not I said the fly)

...but through interaction of student and teacher.
Who cares?
If computers took over completely, then the institution of school and interaction between students would be lost.

The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.'
So what?
Consumers are being tricked into buying what they believe helps, when in reality households are spending too much money on an unsubstantial technology.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Synthesis

As technology continues to advance, computers become more and more apart of everyones' lives. Computer provide fast information in a convenient and easy process. Stoll believes that a computer cannot replace books or a convincing teacher. Ohman also believes that computers are overrated for the classroom, but takes a separate viewpoint of Stoll. Ohman focuses more so on the business aspect and the industry forcing the sale of computers on school systems.
Stoll tells us that computers feed the user nonsense and entertainment instead of providing an alternative research method. He is convinced that computer are no more helpful than the nonsense involved in filmstrips. He sees both technological advancements "of dubious educational value." He believes learning does not take place through technology but through interaction of student and teacher. Stoll also presents the idea that plagarism is easier with computers. It shows students to use a "copy-and-paste attitude" when approaching research and papers. Stoll cannot accept the new wave, or should I say, present wave of technology, because he believes teachers are the only adequete way to get information to the youth. Richard Ohman feels the same way as Stoll does about computers, but not for the same reasons. He believes the integration of the computer is due to "expansionism on the part of capital." More or less, technology is being pushed onto schools across the country due to the profit in big business. The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.' He shares Stoll's opinion that computers are more of a distraction in class than a benefit.
Unfortunately for these two gentlemen, computers are going to be apart of schooling from here on out. And whether you hate it or love it, everyone should learn to embrace it. Computers, for the expenses and confusion that they cause, truly do have benefits in a students work environment. Internet and email makes communication extremely simple. Not only can a student contact their teacher at any time, but parents have the opportunity to contact an elementary school teacher when necessary. Computers also ready students for the real world. Most jobs in the world today are becoming computer-based and a student should understand the technology necessary for their life. These are life skills that should be developed early on. Information has also become more readily available due to the advancement of the internet. Students are able to cite sources much more easily than sitting in a library and searching through hundreds of books. Computers may be a distraction, but either way they are here to stay.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Un oracion

Sythesis statement
Both Ohmann and Stoll believe that computers do not advance learning in the classroom.

Outline
Computers are good:
-They offer fast and simple communication outside of the classroom
-Keep up with the real world and jobs using technological advancements
-Research is readily available and easy to access on internet

Computers are bad:
-Do not allow for information to be presented with emotion
-Plagiarism is a bigger issue when using computers
-Big businesses are changing schools for monetary purposes

Stoll and Ohmann make similar arguments, but they do have different points. They are easily relatable and passages from both can be used almost interchangeably. Ohmann clearly focuses more on the business aspect. Stoll thinks that technology in the classroom is a hindrance. They both then find share the belief that technology is inevitable but teachers will and should put it off as long as possible.

Kompuders and Teknolidgy

As America continues to find new advancements in technology, the question is posed on whether it is necessary to have teachers and the classic classroom setting. This article sides with teachers over technology. Computers are able to present information in new and exciting ways, instead of the old black and white text with pictures in the corners of the textbook. Computers also allow students and teachers to communicate much more easily than the past. Computers also open negatives, such as an easy ability to plagarize work. So far, studies have shown that computers haven't actually helped studying and test scores. Ohmann believes that teachers will just be confused with the technology and do anything in their power to work around it.
I think that technology should be embraced, but Ohmann makes a good point. Teachers are completely necessary to learning. Even if all the same information can be presented on the computer that can be in the classroom, you will never get the first hand experience from the teacher. On a computer, you cannot get the emotion and importance of certain subjects unless a real person teaches you.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Hidden Intellectualism

In his article "Hidden Intellectualism," Gerald Graff criticizes those that do not put value into "street smarts." Graff insists that knowledge goes far beyond academic learning and continues into the everyday world.
As a child, Graff always looked for a happy medium between brawn and brain. As Graff describes, he felt "the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." In a culture that values sports and entertainment, Gerald knew he would face ridicule if academic subjects became his main point of interest. Gerald believes that academic knowledge can be a hindrance to social life and continues to argue that sports are a much better topic to be interested in. Because football and baseball statistics became his center of interest, sports became the topic of conversation between him and his friends. Instead of talking about chemistry, Graff found himself in arguments about who should be the next MVP. Little did Graff realize, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, summaries, generalizations, and "other intellectualizing operations."
After coming to an understanding of what these conversations helped Graff establish, the idea that "the sports world was more compelling than school because it was more intellectual than school, not less" began to surface in his mind. Graff then pleads the reader to take interesting topics unrelated to school and look at them "through academic eyes." In other wards, Graff essentially conveys the idea of taking street smart topics and turning them into intellectual debates. His stance portrays a culture that incorporates common subjects to be discussed and viewed in different ways.
Graff's theory of street smarts is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of social life being excluded from academic situations, but this is not to say that street smarts is more important than academic knowledge. When Graff contests that subjects should be seen through "academic eyes," he has truly struck on an important idea. Incorporating both social and academic importance's can open a new world of opportunity to the student. If scholars are given the option to write research topics of interest, then not only will they be able to attain the benefits of knowledge in the classroom but also learn about subjects related to their social lives. When I took senior composition in high school, my first reaction to writing and eight-page research paper was dread and fear. No one in their right mind wants to put together an essay of strung together facts and slight opinions, especially when they have to keep the reader interested through out the entire process. Then I learned that the paper was on a topic of our own choice. Immediately, my opinion changed for the positive and I imagines all of the opportunities of writing about something I enjoyed. Needless to say, my paper was eleven pages long and one of the most well constructed articles on music that I could have written.
Even though Graff finds a way to utilize schoolwork and social activities, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that social toughness outweighs classroom understand. I can accept that the two are on a n equal playing field, but the importance of academic knowledge should continued to be stressed on the youth. When it comes to career success, there is no argument that ACT scores and GPA can affect the outcome of your life. Whether it be a radio commercial or television advertisement, everyone has heard the saying that 'on average, people who get a college degree make a million more dollars than people who don't.' The emphasis is evident, but for a purpose. Graff minimizes the importance of grades. The reality behind the situation is simple; if you get good grades, you can get into a good school and then a good job. Seemingly, the best of both worlds would be to get high marks in school and still enjoy the material that is being presented to you, but if the opportunities are not presented to enjoy schoolwork, then you shouldn't succumb to failure. Some ideas are important to grasp, whether they have the student shouting from the rooftops in enjoyment or frustration. Just because Graff's idea of "academic eyes" does not pertain to every subject, the important thing is that we remember to incorporate it when we can, but strive to understand what is mandatory.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Hidden Intellectualism Summary

In Gerald Graff's Hidden Intellectualism, Graff attests that intellect does not only exist in the scholarly form of thinking. Graff insists that knowledge can also take the form of "street smarts."
Graff uses his own experiences in his childhood to help form his argument. Graff tells about his disinterest in traditional academic subjects, and further elaborates on his love of sports. Growing up in Chicago, Graff suggests academic knowledge is a hindrance in social life, as anti-intellectualism ran rampant during his childhood, as it does today. Graff describes a saddening story of growing up torn "between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." An intolerance of superiority amongst the youth caused a sort of internal conflict of brain versus brawn. As Graff aged, the "brawn" side of this heated debate was victorious. Little did he know, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, arguments, generalizations, summaries and "other intellectualizing operations."
Due to the conversations involving his friends, Graff believes that "street smarts" overpower "book smarts" for the fact that both community and culture thirst more for sports and entertainment than for academic subjects. Subjects delegated in schoolwork were topics of isolation amoung pupils, opposed to batting averages and winning percentages during the major league baseball playoffs being a common article for discussion. Graff pleads the reader to take interesting topics that may be unrelated to school and look at them "through academic eyes." In otherwards, Graff essentially conveys the idea of taking street smart topics and turning them into intellectual debates. His stance portrays a culture that encorporates common subjects that can be discussed and viewed in different ways.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Pg. 38 Exercise 2

In today's society, fast food has become somewhat of a norm. It's easy, convenient, and for the price, most would argue that it could hold its own in a taste test. I know that when I was employed at Abercrombie and Fitch, we only had a half hour for a meal break. Not many employees took it upon themselves to make a brown bag lunch, nor did we have a place to store anything outside of a bottled drink. So, as many of the others did, I would indulge myself at a fast food restaurant in the mall, knowing that I would have time to finish my food and that it wouldn't burn a hole in my pocket. But as time went one, I started to notice that it was harder and harder to keep the physical attributes of an Abercrombie associate while continuing to eat at fast food places. So I began to look for alternatives, and found that it is all up to the individual to stay away from high calorie meals. I made a rather drastic decision of becoming a vegetarian. I noticed that many of the places I was eating at offered salads, vegetable entrees, and low fat yogurts or desserts. For the longest time, a number one from McDonalds (the famous big mac) with a large fry and coke suited my hunger more than I could ask for. I never bothered to notice the option of a salad or mixed bowl of fruit only a menu over from the value meals. As I became more contientous of my weight, I began noticing that many of the places I was eating at had other options; options I decided to ignore over and over again. Now, eating a salad from McDonalds can become bland and monotonous after a little while, so I looked for other options. For about the same price, if not cheaper, frozen lean cuisine and Jewel's pasta salad were great alternatives to the Manderin Orange Chicken Salad without the chicken. Without any help from my parents, friends, or even David Zinczenko, I managed to change how I ate for the same amount of money, completely unpersuaded from the fast food industry.

In today's society, fast food has become somewhat of a norm. It's easy, convenient, and for the price, most would argue that it could hold its own in a taste test. I know that when I was employed at Abercrombie and Fitch, we only had a half hour for a meal break. Not many employees took it upon themselves to make a brown bag lunch, nor did we have a place to store anything outside of a bottled drink. So, as many of the others did, I would indulge myself at a fast food restaurant in the mall, knowing that I would have time to finish my food and that it wouldn't burn a hole in my pocket. As the time went on, a little bit of pudge appeared around my stomach and my rather loose fitting jeans became snug in the waste in thighs. I could not come to a conclusion on how this might be happening. Then I saw the correlation between my new employment and the weight increase. Since Abercrombie and Fitch has never had a claim against them about their cologne increasing the fat tissue of ones body, I figured it must be the fast food I was eating that was doing it to me. So right then and there, I vowed to pull away from the corporations that manufactured tasteless burgers and laskluster pizza. Immediately, the results showed that I was right. I went back to my weight, saw an increase in my track abilities, and found working out at the gym much easier. But who's fault was it that I began putting on weight so readily? None other than my own. No one forced me to eat at a fast food restaurant during my breaks, I choose that for myself. When I decided to stop eating there, I lost the weight I had put on. Just because the company made it convenient to eat there doesn't mean the blame should be taken off of myself. All of the lawsuites and complaints made against corporations in the food industry are rediculous. Most places promise a food for cheap that tastes good; for most companies, they deliver a product that is fairly cheap and tastes good. I don't remember a promise of low calorie meals or fat burning options. It must be within ourselves to create a physical appearance we are proud of. If we don't succeed, then we must try another option. That is what America is all about, a place of opportunities and options, and if satisfaction is not granted, then it should be our own motive to make things better that changes it.

In the both essays, I established free will and the betterment of self through our own choices. In the first essay, I show how my choices created an environment free from fast food. In my second essay, I comply with Zinczenko and agree that fast food has the ability to increase calorie intake. I go on to disagree with it being the companies fault and relate back to the idea of free will to make our own choices. Overall, I hold the idea of making your own choices, but the essays are very different. One essay shows the alternatives to fast food and the other put the blame on fast food, but both held a central idea. The arguments are strong in both situations, but hold a different relevance.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/health_department_closes_perfectly

No one minds eating at a restaurant that is filled with vermin and has traces of E. Coli on the counter tops. At least that is what The Onion tries to argue in an article about the closure of Burrito Max, a Mexican restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. They talk about the violations of health code and numerous possibilities for disease, but still debate with the FDA about how delicious the food was. The onion feels that no matter the quality of the food, it is the response of the customers and taste that should determine whether or not a business stays open.

I disagree with The Onion and think that health codes are completely necessary. The knowledge of disease and sanitation has greatly increased over the years and should set a guideline for todays restaurants, just as it already has.