In The Nata Village blog, under the post called No One Left Behind, what matters to the writer is her students, and being sure that everyone who wants an education can get one. In the blog, though rather short, there were vivid moments of when I could tell that the writer was going to be sure that there would be enough room in the schools, whether indoor or outdoor, for children to learn.
With the growing population in Nata, that means that more and more young children will be enrolling into Nata Primary School, more space will be needed, so more schools will have to be built. This could help increase the population of Nata even more, and eventually turn it into a well-known country.
The children say that education is important to every child in Nata. When I read this it made me stop and think for a minute. In America, children don’t always enjoy going to school, and take the fact that we have many different schools to go to for granted. In Nata, going to school is a privilege, and those who have it are very grateful. In America, education is how we get along in life, and without it, it is very difficult to find a well paying job. Those that have taken education for granted, now live off of a poor paying job in an apartment on the opposite side of town. That isn’t meant to be prejudice about those who can’t afford things such as cars and new technology, it just goes to show the cause and effect of those who cared about their education versus those who didn’t. This doesn’t appear to be the case in Nata. It seems to me that every child would love to have an education, and those who do get it take advantage of the fact that they are being handed knowledge.
If we weren’t given a free education five days a week, would we want one? Would we be like the Nata people, and view education as an opportunity to succeed in life? Would pour education matter more to us if we had to work for it? These were all key questions that came into my head, and I wonder sometimes, what would it be like to work all day instead of go to school? Some people would be thrilled at the idea of not having to study for tests, or not having to do homework for long hours every night. But if we really think about it, at school, we get to see our friends, occasionally we get to play a game in class, we don’t ALWAYS have homework, and we get our fair share of breaks throughout the course of the year. If we were forced to work instead of going to school, we would only see our friends after all of our daily work was done, we would never get to play any games throughout the day, we would get no vacations, no days off, no breaks, because the daily chores need to be done every day. If we had to work all day, we would be begging at the chance to go to school and learn for eight hours rather than work for up to 12 hours.
To the Nata people, education really matters, and everyone would give their 100% best effort at everything they did, just so they could keep learning, rather than having to go to work every day. Next time that you think about complaining about going to school, think about all those in the world who don’t get a chance to go to school. And then think about those people who wasted their education because they slacked off in school, or simply because they didn’t care. Look at where those people’s lives are now. Do you want to live that way for the rest of your life? Instead of taking our education for granted, let’s take advantage of the opportunity to learn.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
PLN 5: Britannica Debate: Will Web 2.0 be an Integral Point of Education
Many people have noticed the sudden increase in technology. The use of computers in our everyday lives has gone from rare, to more common, to the point where we can’t live without them in just a span of about 50 years. In Britannica Debate: Will Web 2.0 be an Integral Part of Education, by Will Richardson, I found that many people are debating about how much computers matter in our education today. The post comes from two different points of view, the one pro more computers in education, and the won anti-more computers in education. Both sides pointed out the pros for their viewpoint.
Steve Hargadon argues that “technologies will make a huge impact on the future of learning.” His point of view is that of pro for having computers become a bigger part in the learning process. He believes that by putting more technology into education, the way that we learn in the future will be different, but for the good. It will help students learn more efficiently, and make studies easier.
On the other hand Daniel Willingham says “not so fast”. In Willingham’s blog, he compares the project based learning now, to the project based learning that people have been trying to realize in a traditional class point. By this he means how students are being taught today, for example using the computers for the majority of homework assignments, compared to the paper and pencil that were originally used. I read an excerpt from Willingham’s blog that I found made a good point.
Hargadon is clear-eyed in his list of challenges to making Web 2.0 an important part of K-12 education, but I think he underestimates the seriousness of his third point, “Teachers will need time and training to use these tools in the classroom.”
There has been an enormous push to leverage technology in K-12 education in the last decade. The costs in infrastructure, personnel, training, and ongoing access are difficult to pin down, but conservative estimates are in the billions each year.
Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of “computer fads,” in Hargadon’s term, and an all-around disappointment?
At least part of the reason is that, despite expenditures, support has been inadequate. For example, support personnel tend not to be specialized, although the technology needs of the English teacher are different than those of the Science teacher. If still more money were spent, would that alleviate the problem? It might solve the technology problem, but the inherent difficulty of executing project-based learning well would remain.
From this excerpt, I took it to mean that Willingham thought that Hargadon has some good points, but that people can’t totally transfer to computers, at least not yet. It is too early to abandon the idea of the traditional pencil and paper. The cost of replacing every school with computers would add up to billions of dollars every year, plus the cost of different programs for different schools.
Willingham asks a question “Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of ‘computer fads’ in Hargadon’s term, and all around disappointment?” I found this interesting because it comes across as “Why hasn’t technology stuck in schools, and in our everyday lives, but instead in just somewhat of a phase that we have been in and out of for the past 10 years, and each time we go out of it, it is a disappointment to all?” I think that Willingham makes a good point, but I think that people need to realize that we are in a new century now, and we are moving on. We are making a new legacy in our advance. We can’t stay the same for forever. As I said in my presentation on Friday, life will be boring if we are not willing to take a risk. We are taking a risk by moving computers to our main way of learning.
Computers have become a part of everyone’s life. By adding them into our learning, we aren’t actually taking that huge of a step. Its not like we are taking a foreign device and saying “this is going to be your life for the next 16 years of education. Most people know the basis of how to use a computer, teachers especially. We now have assignments being turned in online, or homework being online. Computers have already become a big part of technology, so I don’t see the risk in making them one of the main ways of learning.
On the other hand, I also don’t think we should totally abandon the pencil and paper. I think that knowing how to write with the hand, rather than typing on the keyboard is very important. To take tests such as CSAPS, students will need to know how to write, and not rely on the computer to fix their mistakes, unless these types of tests become computerized tests, where then all of learning and education will virtually be electronically possible.
I liked how the article wasn’t biased. Both sides of the story were shown, both points were viewed. I have found both ideas to be reasonable. Overall, I think that eventually, computers will be the main way of learning, but for now, we should have a good mix of writing versus typing. How will our stand point on this topic be changed ion the next 10 years?
Steve Hargadon argues that “technologies will make a huge impact on the future of learning.” His point of view is that of pro for having computers become a bigger part in the learning process. He believes that by putting more technology into education, the way that we learn in the future will be different, but for the good. It will help students learn more efficiently, and make studies easier.
On the other hand Daniel Willingham says “not so fast”. In Willingham’s blog, he compares the project based learning now, to the project based learning that people have been trying to realize in a traditional class point. By this he means how students are being taught today, for example using the computers for the majority of homework assignments, compared to the paper and pencil that were originally used. I read an excerpt from Willingham’s blog that I found made a good point.
Hargadon is clear-eyed in his list of challenges to making Web 2.0 an important part of K-12 education, but I think he underestimates the seriousness of his third point, “Teachers will need time and training to use these tools in the classroom.”
There has been an enormous push to leverage technology in K-12 education in the last decade. The costs in infrastructure, personnel, training, and ongoing access are difficult to pin down, but conservative estimates are in the billions each year.
Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of “computer fads,” in Hargadon’s term, and an all-around disappointment?
At least part of the reason is that, despite expenditures, support has been inadequate. For example, support personnel tend not to be specialized, although the technology needs of the English teacher are different than those of the Science teacher. If still more money were spent, would that alleviate the problem? It might solve the technology problem, but the inherent difficulty of executing project-based learning well would remain.
From this excerpt, I took it to mean that Willingham thought that Hargadon has some good points, but that people can’t totally transfer to computers, at least not yet. It is too early to abandon the idea of the traditional pencil and paper. The cost of replacing every school with computers would add up to billions of dollars every year, plus the cost of different programs for different schools.
Willingham asks a question “Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of ‘computer fads’ in Hargadon’s term, and all around disappointment?” I found this interesting because it comes across as “Why hasn’t technology stuck in schools, and in our everyday lives, but instead in just somewhat of a phase that we have been in and out of for the past 10 years, and each time we go out of it, it is a disappointment to all?” I think that Willingham makes a good point, but I think that people need to realize that we are in a new century now, and we are moving on. We are making a new legacy in our advance. We can’t stay the same for forever. As I said in my presentation on Friday, life will be boring if we are not willing to take a risk. We are taking a risk by moving computers to our main way of learning.
Computers have become a part of everyone’s life. By adding them into our learning, we aren’t actually taking that huge of a step. Its not like we are taking a foreign device and saying “this is going to be your life for the next 16 years of education. Most people know the basis of how to use a computer, teachers especially. We now have assignments being turned in online, or homework being online. Computers have already become a big part of technology, so I don’t see the risk in making them one of the main ways of learning.
On the other hand, I also don’t think we should totally abandon the pencil and paper. I think that knowing how to write with the hand, rather than typing on the keyboard is very important. To take tests such as CSAPS, students will need to know how to write, and not rely on the computer to fix their mistakes, unless these types of tests become computerized tests, where then all of learning and education will virtually be electronically possible.
I liked how the article wasn’t biased. Both sides of the story were shown, both points were viewed. I have found both ideas to be reasonable. Overall, I think that eventually, computers will be the main way of learning, but for now, we should have a good mix of writing versus typing. How will our stand point on this topic be changed ion the next 10 years?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
PLN 4; Presidential Ads Imbedded in Video Games
In Karl Ficsh’s blog, Presidential Ads Imbedded in Video Games, what matters is informing the public on matters in politics, particularly in the presidential election for 2008. The main question is whether this is a good idea or not. Some people may say that it is a good idea, while others have the stand point that it is a waste of time and money, especially when the election is over, and those ads won’t have any affect anymore.
There are those people who stand in the perspective in favor of placing election advertisement in video games because they think it will get the people’s attention. It matters to them to inform the nation and encourage them to vote, specifically for their candidate. Those types of people are correct when saying that by placing ads in video games, they have found another creative way to campaign and inform the public about what is going on in politics. They think that the cost is worth it, especially if their candidate is elected.
There are also the types of people who think that by placing ads in video games to campaign for the election, they are wasting money and time. They think that it’s a waste of money because when people are playing these games five years ago, the election will be over, someone new will be in office, and the showing of the ad will just waste people’s time, when they could be already playing the game. It goes to show that these temporary ads could prove to be ineffective, especially since most gamers don’t pay attention to the ads, and would much rather just get to the game.
I think that I tend to agree with the people who are against placing the ads into video games. I agree that it is a waste of money, and in five years from now, will be unnecessary, and not useful. Nobody will care about the election years from now, yet they will be forced to waste their game time while the ad continues to play over and over again, every time they play the game. I don’t see the point in spending billions and billions of dollars for an ad that will only be affective for the next 22 days.
Overall, I think that the fact that this has come up means that the election will be close. Even though it has only been reported by a few people, it goes to show that some people can get so desperate for their candidate to win that they are willing to go to the trouble to create and spend money on the advertisement. This also shows that the election will be close, and can create much tension and controversy between people campaigning for their candidate for the 2008 election.
There are those people who stand in the perspective in favor of placing election advertisement in video games because they think it will get the people’s attention. It matters to them to inform the nation and encourage them to vote, specifically for their candidate. Those types of people are correct when saying that by placing ads in video games, they have found another creative way to campaign and inform the public about what is going on in politics. They think that the cost is worth it, especially if their candidate is elected.
There are also the types of people who think that by placing ads in video games to campaign for the election, they are wasting money and time. They think that it’s a waste of money because when people are playing these games five years ago, the election will be over, someone new will be in office, and the showing of the ad will just waste people’s time, when they could be already playing the game. It goes to show that these temporary ads could prove to be ineffective, especially since most gamers don’t pay attention to the ads, and would much rather just get to the game.
I think that I tend to agree with the people who are against placing the ads into video games. I agree that it is a waste of money, and in five years from now, will be unnecessary, and not useful. Nobody will care about the election years from now, yet they will be forced to waste their game time while the ad continues to play over and over again, every time they play the game. I don’t see the point in spending billions and billions of dollars for an ad that will only be affective for the next 22 days.
Overall, I think that the fact that this has come up means that the election will be close. Even though it has only been reported by a few people, it goes to show that some people can get so desperate for their candidate to win that they are willing to go to the trouble to create and spend money on the advertisement. This also shows that the election will be close, and can create much tension and controversy between people campaigning for their candidate for the 2008 election.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
PLN 3; Life = Risk
Life is about taking risks. Actually, to be more accurate, the way your life goes, is based on whether or not you choose to take risks. It is possible to life a safe life, without taking any risks, living a sheltered life. There is also the possibility to live a daring life full of risks and choices, not knowing where you will be at the end of the day. In the You Tube video, “Famous Failures”, by Dale Basler, what matters is risk, failure, and not giving up.
The video talks about people who are famous for their success, and failures that they had. If these people, such as Lucille Ball, Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, Ulysses S. Grant, and Abraham Lincoln had given up when they failed, or didn’t take the risk to try again to become successful, then the world would not have the legacy’s, the history, or the technology that we have today.
It was very surprising to find out interesting facts about people that I had always known to have copious success from the very start. For example, when coming across the knowledge of facts including Lucille Ball being dismissed from drama class, Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and Walt Disney being fired from a newspaper for lack of creativity. Many would never even imagine this possible because today, these people leave a legend in history, and a spot in the minds of many.
The people shown in the video took a risk to try again. Lucille Ball didn’t give up her entire acting career, Walt Disney didn’t stop being creative, and Abraham Lincoln did not give up his mark in history just because they suffered failure. BY going back a second time, they were taking a risk for failure, but also a risk for change. By going back a second, third, or fourth time, each one of these individuals found a success that took them far, their lives were changed because they weren’t afraid of failure, and they weren’t going to lose the battle of success.
This is how a multitude of human beings live their lives today as well. Everyday, failure is faced, success is reached, risks are taken, and choices are made. The types of people who aren’t afraid to put themselves out into the world, present themselves forward, and go for it are the types of people who find success easy. The types of people that are afraid to take risks, and who live a very sheltered, safe life, are the types of people that remain the same without change, and live their life just like their ancestors did before them.
Success does not come knocking at your door, you have to go out and grab it. You have to take life for what its worth and not be afraid to step outside the box and take a risk or two. You can’t give up on life, and think that one failure means it wasn’t meant to be. If that is the way your life is currently being lived, and you are facing failure, and not finding success, don’t give up because it will get you no where.
The video talks about people who are famous for their success, and failures that they had. If these people, such as Lucille Ball, Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, Ulysses S. Grant, and Abraham Lincoln had given up when they failed, or didn’t take the risk to try again to become successful, then the world would not have the legacy’s, the history, or the technology that we have today.
It was very surprising to find out interesting facts about people that I had always known to have copious success from the very start. For example, when coming across the knowledge of facts including Lucille Ball being dismissed from drama class, Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and Walt Disney being fired from a newspaper for lack of creativity. Many would never even imagine this possible because today, these people leave a legend in history, and a spot in the minds of many.
The people shown in the video took a risk to try again. Lucille Ball didn’t give up her entire acting career, Walt Disney didn’t stop being creative, and Abraham Lincoln did not give up his mark in history just because they suffered failure. BY going back a second time, they were taking a risk for failure, but also a risk for change. By going back a second, third, or fourth time, each one of these individuals found a success that took them far, their lives were changed because they weren’t afraid of failure, and they weren’t going to lose the battle of success.
This is how a multitude of human beings live their lives today as well. Everyday, failure is faced, success is reached, risks are taken, and choices are made. The types of people who aren’t afraid to put themselves out into the world, present themselves forward, and go for it are the types of people who find success easy. The types of people that are afraid to take risks, and who live a very sheltered, safe life, are the types of people that remain the same without change, and live their life just like their ancestors did before them.
Success does not come knocking at your door, you have to go out and grab it. You have to take life for what its worth and not be afraid to step outside the box and take a risk or two. You can’t give up on life, and think that one failure means it wasn’t meant to be. If that is the way your life is currently being lived, and you are facing failure, and not finding success, don’t give up because it will get you no where.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Did You Know?
Did You Know?
Did You Know by Karl Fisch
34 babies in 8 seconds
what will it be like for them
college grads more in India?
did you know
10 years from now
exponential times
change
use of computers
MySpace is 8th largest in the world
technology
what does this all mean
shift happens
In Karl Fisch's Did You Know presentation, what matters most is change.There has been much talk of how technology is destroying our brain, and that eventually , it will be smarter than us. Several times in the video, graphs are shown, or information is given, that shows the change in uses of technology, or the change of rates in literacy or education. Charts and information is also shown showing the amount of technology used every minute of our lives.
While watching the video, I was very surprised when I realized how much technology has advanced in the past 30 or so years. The use of cellular devices, internet, computers, and all other types of technology created over the years has been advanced in so many ways to make life easier for all people. The video showed how much more it will help the entire human race within the next 15 years, to the point where we no longer really need our brains for actual comprehension, but only to keep our bodies working. I hadn’t previously realized how quickly the pace for advancement was moving. It is predicted that by 2049, a single $1,000 computer will be able to comprehend more than the entire human race.
I also watched the Shift Happens Narrated version on You Tube to get a better idea of what all this means. This is where I got the picture that America is no longer number 1. India and China have well exceeded our education standards, as well as the amount of people that graduate from college, the amount of people that can fluently speak English and their native language, and the amount of high honors students in high schools. I had always pictured America as the place to be for a good education, and the place to go to college because America was m0ore successful. After watching both videos, I realized that that isn’t the case. Compared to China and India, America is a puppy in the pack of wild dogs.
I was thinking about whether or not this information could really be true and accurate. I realize that the pace of technology is advancing very quickly, but I don’t ever think it will be perfect. To state my point, I found proof. As I was writing this blog the first time, and publishing it on my personal blog, something happened inside the computer causing it to delete my latest posts, including the first version of Did You Know. After searching profusely for about an hour, I accepted the fact that something had gone wrong I the computer, and a mistake was made. That is a point that shows that technology will never be perfect, no matter how advanced, quick, or high-tech it may be. There will always be some sort of glitch in the program, or there will always be some instance where something goes wrong, whether by accident, or intentional, by the computer of the human.
At first, I was having troubles deciding what else could matter to this video. I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t what mattered to the video, it was what mattered to the people viewing the video. This clip can be viewed in many different ways and perspectives, and many conclusions can be drawn from it. There could be many types of bias taken from this video. Some people, such as businessmen could take this as a good thing. They would be all for advancing technology quickly to make the lives of humans easier. Some would also love the idea of getting to the point where a computer controls their lives because they are to lazy to work for anything themselves. The types of people that are for getting to the point where human brains are almost not needed are the people that are trying to simplify life, and make work more easy, leaving more leisure time for everyone. Then there are the types of people that enjoy advancements in technology, but would like to keep the brain in use, and not have it overtaken by a computer. I must say that I am one of these people. I like working for things, and when it comes to the point where that is longer possible, is when enough is enough. People like this believe that if we keep up this rate of advancement, advancing any further will be impossible because the advancement is to advanced to advance any further. By pushing technology further and further, it will ruin our assiduous efforts to persevere and actually work towards our goals in life.
If technology keeps going at the pace it is said to be going, then before we know it, we will be warped into computers, and they will become our life, but we won’t know what to do about it. By slowing down to watch what we are actually doing, and to see the potential mess we could be creating, we could save ourselves from disaster, or we could miss many opportunities that lie ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)