Understanding Students Who Were "Born Digital"

The piece Understanding Students Who Were "Born Digital", is an interview with the authors who wrote "Born Digital : Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives". This book is for parents and teachers to "understand" what their kids do (I assume in regards with technology and such). The natives are considered from grade school to higher education. The interview covered topics such as : whether or not to ban internet in class, evolution of libraries, and whether students are learning differently as a result of new technology.

I think this book they wrote is unnecessary. I think it's being made a bigger deal than it really is, of course a $$$ deal. It's like one of those scares you see every night on tv.... remember Y2K and how the world was supposed to blow up because computers weren't supposed to be smart enough to put 00, instead of 99? Well, maybe not that extreme. I like the way they answered their questions because well, #1 they actually answered their question and got straight to the point, and 2, they showed both sides of the pro's and con's of the internet in today's education. They showed why it's good to have internet in the classroom for a cyberlaw professor (never heard of that before), and why it's not necessary in first year courses. Also, I support their statement on "technology on its own can do nothing, rather it's a tool for teachers adnd students to put to work in support". I think that summarizes it well because things like computers are almost necessary in education today, or atleast at the university for research, word processing, note-taking, etc. but the internet will not do your paper for you, look up your research for you, or take notes for you. It just makes life easier, and more efficient when it comes to school work. As for the distractions it may cause --- I do not think that is as big of a deal as it's made out to be... sure it does distract, but if a student is not so inclined to learn about subjects he/she is enrolled in, then so be it. Thus far, I've determined that success is attained by the work you put into whatever it may be. If you can go on the internet, or go on your iPhone (so played out now)during class and not pay attention, yet still achieve the grade you would like, then great, if you don't achieve the grade that you want, then you should probably stay on tract during class, lectures, etc. So yes, technology can be a distraction, but I don't think it's something you need to ban with adults that make their own decisions daily.... perhaps in high school or middle school there can be a ban, but in no way would that work in a university setting.

Digital Naitvies

On wednesday we read a short piece about "Digital Natives" and "Digital Immigrants". This was a rather interesting story on this generation and the technology revolution, and the prior generations, or the "old school". Mentioned were how students and professors interact in learning. It was suggested that "today's students are no longer the people our educational system is designed to teach" . It went on to say that todays generation has been surrounded by video games, tv, cell phones and other electronics and spend more time playing video games than reading. A professor of medicine suggested that "our students brains have physically changed", and just think differently than before. A main point in the article is that the professors now are having a hard time teaching "a population that speaks an entirely new language".

I agreed with most of the things mentioned in the article, but I did not agree that "legacy" content (math, reading, writing, logic) should become less important than "future" content (ethics, politics, sociology, languages). I think Legacy content is still the foundation for schools and should not be brushed aside. I have not seen or experience a problem with the way classes are taught or the way lectures are conducted. I still prefer to write out notes rather than typing. I think the interaction between the students and teachers is very important in classes -- especially the "cps" unit we have here at wayne.... it implements new ways of thinking and learning during lectures through these interactions, rather than just the teacher talking the whole lecture. I also think that we as a whole have become far less social as a result of cell phones, text messaging, myspace, facebook, AIM, etc. I can remember being a kid and going to my neighbors house ringing the doorbell, talkin to their parents, and all that fun stuff. Then, later when I got a cell phone I used to call up my friends to talk or hang out, and now it's gotten to a point where I don't even call my friends much, I just text message instead. The interactions have become less emotional in a sense where talking to someone online and in person are two completely different methods of communication and I can only imagine what 5 years from now technology will bring us.

Host

In class this week we discussed Host David Foster Wallace. It discussed the life of a radio talk show host from california, John Ziegler. It was written unlike any other reading. It had a main text, then side boxes, or notes explaining certain things that were said in the main text. Some boxes had John Zieglers take, some David Foster Wallace's. Basically it was a story about John Ziegler involving his life aas a talk show host and going in depth on things such as : how a radio station functions day-to-day, the advertisement and financial part of it, things Ziegler discusses on air, the censoship, etc. Ziegler was portrayed from Wallace as being a racist, although Zielger himself did not believe he was. He spoke about things such as OJ simpson trial, Kobe Bryant, Nick Berg's beheading and politics. He did not like the mainstream NBC and Fox shows that aired on TV. He has a disregard for racism and women. Another huge thing that was a common theme throughout the piece was PC and censorship with Ziegler. He was very insensitive and did not obey things said "PC". I believd Wallace on the things he said about Ziegler. Ziegler may not have noticed things he said, but Wallce broke down his comments like the example with arguing with the caller darryl about the OJ trial and Zieglers insensitivity towards black people, when zielger himself is white. I think Ziegler just said things that people thought, but would never say. He was not very caring for people other than himself, like the comments he made aobut "us being better than them" referring to the arab world. Don Imus and Rush limbaugh are two radio talk show hosts and they have made headlines for controversial topics. They have been in business for a while now, it seems like radio is the only place to go with minimum censorship because it mostly appeals to people pro, or side with the host that's why they listen to it.

bartleby

After reading bartleby I could tell melville used many metaphors throughout his piece.  TUrkey and nippers = coffee machines and turkey was a drunk, while nippers had indigestion problems.Turkey worked well in the morning, then crashed in the afternoon and Nippers was the opposite.  These were things to infer through the reading, they were not directly stated.  Bartleby struck me as a character which not a whole lot was clear about him.  I think we just interpreted him whichever way we would like to have and there was no right, or wrong answer.  There was a chance this piece was focused more on the narrorator rather bartleby himself.  There have been many interpretations about the characters and mine will be enclosed in my essay.