1. Compared to writing traditional essays as you have in other classes, were the expectations of the Voicethread assignment easier, harder or just different? In other words, was it clear to you what the format of the assignment was and how to produce one?
The expectations of the Voicethread assignment were both easier and harder just because the assignment was different from writing a traditional essay. It was easier because it implemented a visual element. By using pictures to emphasize the argument, the audience can actually see what the author is trying to argue. This can sometimes be difficult to express in traditional writing. The format of the program itself also made it easier than writing an essay because of the similar “slides” that the PowerPoint program utilizes. I have used PowerPoint extensively in the past which made the transition relatively smooth. Voicethread was more difficult in the respect that the program was new to me and I had to make sure what I said would get across to the audience the way that I had hoped. It was also difficult to use speech instead of text since I am not the most exciting speaker. In some respects, hearing my voice instead of reading an essay may have actually hurt my argument more than helping it.
2. How easy was the program to use? What problems did you have. (Give examples!)
The Voicethread program was very simple to use, but in all honesty the Animoto program was much more exciting and produced a much better result. Voicethread presentations seem somewhat dry and it was difficult to think of ways to keep the audience engaged. There are no options to add music or to add variety to slide transitions. The most advanced tool is the Video Doodling tool which wasn’t relevant in my presentation. I didn’t have any problems with Voicethread per se except that I didn’t have a microphone on my desktop so I was restricted to using my Mac that has the built-in microphone. Like I said, this wasn’t much of a problem for me but I could see how the microphone issue could easily deter someone from choosing the Voicethread assignment over a traditional essay.
3. Did the non-text requirements of the Voicethread program contribute to your learning in this class? Did they get in the way? Or did they have no affect at all?
The non-text requirements of the Voicethread program contributed to my learning because it gave me another tool to use to express my argument. It was refreshing to have the option of presenting an assignment in a new way and to step away from the traditional essays. However the non-text requirement also limited the presentations effectiveness. The Animoto program and my PSA video demonstrate how users can combine visuals, audio, and text to create a presentation. As an amateur video maker, I like to have the option to pick and choose and to combine these methods to create the most effective presentation.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Critical Thinking in Primary School
American school systems have their pros and cons. The less fortunate school systems are often restricted because of budget and resources which leads to higher dropout rates and substandard performance. On average, the American school system loses 1.2 million students a year due to drop-outs (whitehouse.gov). But when the school system is properly funded, students can learn the skills and resources they need to be successful and finish school.
One of these skills can be to learn a foreign language. Learning a foreign language allows students to open doors to new opportunities and be more competitive in the work force. Research shows that learning a foreign language while in primary school is more effective and beneficial than learning it in high school due to the learning curve of a child’s brain (actfl.org). While students are in primary school, their brains “absorb” more than that of a teenager which brings me to my point: primary schools should teach as many of the basic social and mental skills to their students while the brain is most active. This will lay the foundation for students to succeed and assure that they are well prepared in whatever they may do.
In a perfect world we would be able to teach our children priceless skills such as critical thinking, financial responsibility, test-taking skills, ethics, social skills and so forth. Each one of these can be debated separately but I will focus on the topic of this blog and lay out the pros and cons of teaching critical thinking in primary school. It was difficult to find research from an opposing viewpoint so I will inject my own critical thinking skills to balance the argument.
PRO:
1. Children will be able to reason early on and develop their own conclusions.
2. This skill doesn’t become irrelevant after leaving school. It applies to many situations in life such as furthering your education, finding a suitable career, politics, and even marriage.
CON:
1. It is difficult to teach this skill to large groups and without specialized attention. It can also be difficult to test for it (fluther.com).
2. In order to teach critical thinking, teachers must be proficient in critical thinking themselves. It’s not a topic that can be taught by memorizing steps or by learning a set of rules to follow. It’s a skill that can be very individualized.
In conclusion, certain life-skills need to be taught to our children at a point in their schooling that is most beneficial to them. It is the governments’ responsibility to ensure the proper resources are allocated to the school system and it is the school systems’ responsibility to prepare students for the rest of their lives.
References
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-steps-reduce-dropout-rate-and-prepare-students-college-an
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3653
http://www.fluther.com/7292/why-isnt-critical-thinking-taught-in-school-from-early-on/
For more information on critical thinking taught from K-3, visit http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/elementary.cfm
One of these skills can be to learn a foreign language. Learning a foreign language allows students to open doors to new opportunities and be more competitive in the work force. Research shows that learning a foreign language while in primary school is more effective and beneficial than learning it in high school due to the learning curve of a child’s brain (actfl.org). While students are in primary school, their brains “absorb” more than that of a teenager which brings me to my point: primary schools should teach as many of the basic social and mental skills to their students while the brain is most active. This will lay the foundation for students to succeed and assure that they are well prepared in whatever they may do.
In a perfect world we would be able to teach our children priceless skills such as critical thinking, financial responsibility, test-taking skills, ethics, social skills and so forth. Each one of these can be debated separately but I will focus on the topic of this blog and lay out the pros and cons of teaching critical thinking in primary school. It was difficult to find research from an opposing viewpoint so I will inject my own critical thinking skills to balance the argument.
PRO:
1. Children will be able to reason early on and develop their own conclusions.
2. This skill doesn’t become irrelevant after leaving school. It applies to many situations in life such as furthering your education, finding a suitable career, politics, and even marriage.
CON:
1. It is difficult to teach this skill to large groups and without specialized attention. It can also be difficult to test for it (fluther.com).
2. In order to teach critical thinking, teachers must be proficient in critical thinking themselves. It’s not a topic that can be taught by memorizing steps or by learning a set of rules to follow. It’s a skill that can be very individualized.
In conclusion, certain life-skills need to be taught to our children at a point in their schooling that is most beneficial to them. It is the governments’ responsibility to ensure the proper resources are allocated to the school system and it is the school systems’ responsibility to prepare students for the rest of their lives.
References
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-steps-reduce-dropout-rate-and-prepare-students-college-an
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3653
http://www.fluther.com/7292/why-isnt-critical-thinking-taught-in-school-from-early-on/
For more information on critical thinking taught from K-3, visit http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/elementary.cfm
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
1001 Words is Worth More Than a Picture
References:
http://images.google.com
http://oels.byu.edu/student/idioms/proverbs/a_pic_thousand_words.html
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Modern Technology Fuels Conspiracy Theories
Every day people observe the world around them. From the moment we wake up to the minute we fall asleep, the mind is constantly learning and interpreting what we view. We draw conclusions and perceptions of reality and form our lives accordingly. And what one person sees may be the complete opposite of what another person sees, even if they view the same occurrence. This leads people to challenge one another and their opposing views. Conspiracy theories are a very good example of this. Hoaxes and reality alike spark debate to find the truth, and perceptions are used to sift through wayward ideas in order to determine the facts.
With today’s modern technology, this “sifting process” becomes complicated. Videos, photos, and editing technology can now be used to accurately reflect virtually anything the mind can dream up. But at the same time, the advanced technology can be used to accurately portray visual evidence. Without pictures, Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster would only be folktales. Hard evidence makes it much more difficult to refute conspiracy theories.
Although the imagination plays a large role in conspiracy theories, modern technology has its place. As Arthur C. Clarke’s third law states, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” (quotationspage.com). Basically, when people don’t understand something, they use terms such as magic to describe it. Even basic principles such as electricity, fire, and gravity appeared supernatural and magical to those who couldn’t explain them. Over time, these things that can’t be explained finally reach a logical and scientific conclusion. For example, a piece of rope and a wooden board can be used to flatten crops into near-perfect circles and designs (wikihow.com). Before I learned of this method, I was convinced that crop circles were real because I personally couldn’t explain how it could be done (even though it’s fairly simple). These days, it can also be easily done by using an aerial photo and Photoshop.
Technology can also be used to disprove conspiracy theories. A popular conspiracy theory that is still around today is the moon landing hoax. Some people still believe that the moon landing was taped in a Hollywood basement and that we never went to the moon at all. But with a little knowledge of cameras, NASA history, basic physics and a little common sense, all moon landing hoax theories can be debunked (braeunig.us).
In conclusion, perception can be a very powerful influence. We choose what to believe and what to disregard as reality. The popularity of conspiracy theories thrives on seeing only one side of the story and modern technology fuels the adage that “seeing is believing”.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Arthur_C._Clarke/
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Crop-Circle#Things_You.27ll_Need
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
With today’s modern technology, this “sifting process” becomes complicated. Videos, photos, and editing technology can now be used to accurately reflect virtually anything the mind can dream up. But at the same time, the advanced technology can be used to accurately portray visual evidence. Without pictures, Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster would only be folktales. Hard evidence makes it much more difficult to refute conspiracy theories.
Although the imagination plays a large role in conspiracy theories, modern technology has its place. As Arthur C. Clarke’s third law states, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” (quotationspage.com). Basically, when people don’t understand something, they use terms such as magic to describe it. Even basic principles such as electricity, fire, and gravity appeared supernatural and magical to those who couldn’t explain them. Over time, these things that can’t be explained finally reach a logical and scientific conclusion. For example, a piece of rope and a wooden board can be used to flatten crops into near-perfect circles and designs (wikihow.com). Before I learned of this method, I was convinced that crop circles were real because I personally couldn’t explain how it could be done (even though it’s fairly simple). These days, it can also be easily done by using an aerial photo and Photoshop.
Technology can also be used to disprove conspiracy theories. A popular conspiracy theory that is still around today is the moon landing hoax. Some people still believe that the moon landing was taped in a Hollywood basement and that we never went to the moon at all. But with a little knowledge of cameras, NASA history, basic physics and a little common sense, all moon landing hoax theories can be debunked (braeunig.us).
In conclusion, perception can be a very powerful influence. We choose what to believe and what to disregard as reality. The popularity of conspiracy theories thrives on seeing only one side of the story and modern technology fuels the adage that “seeing is believing”.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Arthur_C._Clarke/
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Crop-Circle#Things_You.27ll_Need
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Does technology make us smarter or dumber?
In today’s technologically advanced society, information is virtually everywhere. Access to the internet allows people to have endless amounts of knowledge right under their fingertips. But even with all of these resources, does technology improve how people think and learn? This topic can be debated depending on one’s definition of intelligence and the context of the argument as a whole. I personally believe that when technology is used correctly and responsibly, it can greatly improve human intelligence.
According to Webster, intelligence is “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations” (merriam-webster.com). But people have many different ways to define intelligence. Is it the college degree on the wall or the ability to survive independently that makes people smarter? Stephanie Olson explains that Sir Isaac Newton “was socially inept and a borderline hermit” (cnet.com). One requirement of intelligence, for example, might be that a person must be able to communicate what they think. But by this logic, the father of physics and calculus would be considered “dumb”. Furthermore, the proof that technology makes people smarter can be the same reasons that technology inhibits learning.
After the invention of the calculator, one could argue that it became a great tool for learning. But in the same context, our generation has never learned to use a slide rule which was used to get the first man to the moon. So which generation is smarter? It becomes a matter of perspective. A neutral position would be that technology makes us more efficient but neither smarter nor dumber.
Critics tend to take the side that technology makes us dumber. For instance, while typing this blog I overlooked the simple rule of “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’”. But because of spell-check I will not be marked down for grammar. This brings up the point that the union of technology and intelligence is entirely up to the individual. Being completely reliable on something such as spell-check is different than using spell-check simply as a tool. For the same reasons, when browsing the internet for a research paper a person might not take the time to learn and absorb what they are reading but rather find what they need and be done with it.
The upside of technology is that it makes it easier and more efficient to learn. Tools such as Microsoft Office, the internet, and interactive learning programs in school are designed for people to present information in an effective manner. Dr. Mike Merzenich has even “developed software to help children with dyslexia and other disorders learn how to read” (cnet.com). If this technology didn’t exist, these children would quickly fall behind and would struggle to be competitive in society.
In conclusion, technology can be viewed as a blessing or a curse. Many factors play a part when people make up their minds regarding these advancements. But if technology did not continue to evolve, our ability to learn new and exciting things would cease to exist.
References:
merriam-webster.com
http://news.cnet.com/Intelligence-in-the-Internet-age/2100-11395_3-5869719.html
http://news.cnet.com/Are-we-getting-smarter-or-dumber/2008-1008_3-5875404.html
According to Webster, intelligence is “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations” (merriam-webster.com). But people have many different ways to define intelligence. Is it the college degree on the wall or the ability to survive independently that makes people smarter? Stephanie Olson explains that Sir Isaac Newton “was socially inept and a borderline hermit” (cnet.com). One requirement of intelligence, for example, might be that a person must be able to communicate what they think. But by this logic, the father of physics and calculus would be considered “dumb”. Furthermore, the proof that technology makes people smarter can be the same reasons that technology inhibits learning.
After the invention of the calculator, one could argue that it became a great tool for learning. But in the same context, our generation has never learned to use a slide rule which was used to get the first man to the moon. So which generation is smarter? It becomes a matter of perspective. A neutral position would be that technology makes us more efficient but neither smarter nor dumber.
Critics tend to take the side that technology makes us dumber. For instance, while typing this blog I overlooked the simple rule of “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’”. But because of spell-check I will not be marked down for grammar. This brings up the point that the union of technology and intelligence is entirely up to the individual. Being completely reliable on something such as spell-check is different than using spell-check simply as a tool. For the same reasons, when browsing the internet for a research paper a person might not take the time to learn and absorb what they are reading but rather find what they need and be done with it.
The upside of technology is that it makes it easier and more efficient to learn. Tools such as Microsoft Office, the internet, and interactive learning programs in school are designed for people to present information in an effective manner. Dr. Mike Merzenich has even “developed software to help children with dyslexia and other disorders learn how to read” (cnet.com). If this technology didn’t exist, these children would quickly fall behind and would struggle to be competitive in society.
In conclusion, technology can be viewed as a blessing or a curse. Many factors play a part when people make up their minds regarding these advancements. But if technology did not continue to evolve, our ability to learn new and exciting things would cease to exist.
References:
merriam-webster.com
http://news.cnet.com/Intelligence-in-the-Internet-age/2100-11395_3-5869719.html
http://news.cnet.com/Are-we-getting-smarter-or-dumber/2008-1008_3-5875404.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
