Autobiography
View more presentations from squeen0318.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
WebQuest Evaluations
Altitudinist
Your Impressions
WebQuest | Strengths | Weaknesses |
Grow School Greens | Requires students to research and synthesize information Allows for students to be creative in coming up with ideas and in presenting them Students will have to take a stance on whether or not they think this project is worth while | |
Where is My Hero? | The Students create a poster dealing with the facts they’ve learned | Students will be required to focus on biographical facts Students do not have much creative allowance in coming up with their definition of a hero Students much select from pre-chosen list of heroes Students have to recall facts about the heroes |
Underground Railroad | Requires students to do extensive research and to formulate their own opinion and thoughts then present them. Students have to synthesize all of their information based on their roll and formulate how they would respond. Students are exposed to multiple perspectives when sharing with their group members Instead of just memorizing names and facts, students must read information and determine what it means and how it would have affected the people and the world | |
Ice Cream | Students get to be creative in the design, advertisement, and flavor of the ice cream | Students will have to memorize process of making ice cream |
Ancient Egypt | The students get to be creative in designing the brochure. The students will read about their topics and decide what is important and what should be included | The students do not get to come up with their own topic for the brochure The students are required to look up a certain number of facts and repeat them on the brochure as opposed to forming opinions on what they’ve read. |
I think the two best WebQuests are Grow School Greens and Underground Railroad. Both of these require the students to be creative and put their own personality into the projects. Also, the students will look up factual information, but they have to determine what this information means and how it effects the project.
I think the worst two WebQuests are Ancient Egypt and Where is My Hero. Where is My Hero was much too structured. The students were not able to pick their own hero nor were they allowed to come up with their own definition of what a hero is. Ancient Egypt did not allow students enough freedom in what to research about Egypt. Also, the students were required to find a certain number of facts and copy them to their brochures.
As the Altittudinist, the best WebQuests to me allows the students to be creative in their discovery and processing of information. They should have to do more than just read and repeat facts. They should have to find the information and process it, develop their own ideas and opinions about the information, and be able to present or discuss these views. The worst were the ones the just required to students to find information and regurgitate it. They did not require students to analyze the information they found or to critically think about the problem or the issue.
Our groups top and worst WebQuests:
Top: Grow School Greens, Ancient Egypt
Worst: Where is My Hero?, Underground Railroad
Thursday, November 10, 2011
DJE 12
Quote: "We must teach communication comprehensively, in all its forms. Today we work with the written or spoken word as the primary form of communication. But we also need to understand the importance of graphics, music, and cinema, which are just as powerful and in some ways more deeply intertwined with young people's culture. We live and work in a visually sophisticated world, so we must be sophisticated in using all the forms of communication, not just the written word."
Reaction: I strongly agree with Mr. Lucas' point of view on the education system and the steps that need to be taken to improve it. Though written and spoken communication is obviously very important, it is an archaic practice to teach only those things. As we have learned in this class, countless tools are available to teachers and students, many at no cost, and there is no reason that we should not take every advantage of them. We live in the 21st century, an era of constant change, new ideas, collaboration, and progress. Why is this not evident in the classroom? If the point of education is to prepare and inspire students to be sucessful in todays world, then the classroom should be at the forefront of new technological advances. I know that as a student and a young person, I respond strongly to music and movies, sometimes more so than the written word, and I am an avid reader. For students who are not so fond of literature, I think it is extremely important that we use other methods of communication to get them interested and that we teach them other way to communicate. Communication is a tool that students will use for the rest of their lives and they must know how to wield this tool in order to be sucessful in life. The more ways a student is capable of communicating, the better.
Resource: Daly, James. "Life on the Screen: Visual Literacy in Education | Edutopia." K-12 Education & Learning Innovations with Proven Strategies that Work | Edutopia. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. http://www.edutopia.org/lucas-visual-literacy.
Related Resource:
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
DJE 11
The argument in this article is against a recently passed Illinois state law that would ban any and all sex offenders from "using a social-networking service defined as an 'Internet Web site containing profile Web pages...that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs...or any other personal or personally identifying information.'" Larry Magid, the author of the article, believes that this law should not have been passed because it could potentially have negative effects. He believes that part of rehabilitating sex offenders is assimilating them with society and helping them find productive careers and he thinks that social networking sites and such are necessary to this process. He also argues that this law puts too much focus on those who have been convicted as opposed to looking for those who have yet to be caught.
I have always had an issue with how we classify sex offenders. We lump them all into the same category and therefore assume that anyone listed as a sex offender is a terrible rapist or molester. This thought would make anyone want to ban them from even living near a child, let alone being able to access children through the Internet. However, as this article states, many people listed on the sex offender registry never actually committed a crime against a child. Some did something as harmless as streaking. Now, is streaking okay in public, probably not, but does someone who streaks deserve to be put in the same category as people who physically and mentally abuse children? Absolutely not. Also, I agree with the idea of trying to rehabilitate those offenders who are capable of seeking help and becoming productive members of society. I think that they should be heavily monitored but I do think that they should be given the help they need in order to never harm another child. In the world we live in today, social networking and news networks are absolutely necessary to assimilate with others in society and even to keep a job. Just think of how many networks we have become members of for this class alone. Let alone how many times you have gotten a hold of a coworker or even a boss via facebook or twitter. I think that there are certain offenders who should not have access, such as those who actually used the Internet to commit a crime against a child, however I also think that with monitoring, people who have served there time and are now trying to become productive members of society should have a chance to prove themselves and should not be kept from social networking.
Magid cites a number of organizations and task forces, such as the Crimes Against Children Research Center and the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, that have collected data that actually shows that very few adults are actually successful in harming a youth through the web. He uses one very convincing statistic, "A January 2009 analysis of Pennsylvania cases by the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use found, during a four-year period, that 'only eight incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form a relationship,' compared to 9,934 children who were sexually abused in a single year in that state." Though sexual predators on the Internet have been made out to be a huge deal, this shows that there actually aren't very many incidents in this specific type of sexual abuse.
I have always had an issue with how we classify sex offenders. We lump them all into the same category and therefore assume that anyone listed as a sex offender is a terrible rapist or molester. This thought would make anyone want to ban them from even living near a child, let alone being able to access children through the Internet. However, as this article states, many people listed on the sex offender registry never actually committed a crime against a child. Some did something as harmless as streaking. Now, is streaking okay in public, probably not, but does someone who streaks deserve to be put in the same category as people who physically and mentally abuse children? Absolutely not. Also, I agree with the idea of trying to rehabilitate those offenders who are capable of seeking help and becoming productive members of society. I think that they should be heavily monitored but I do think that they should be given the help they need in order to never harm another child. In the world we live in today, social networking and news networks are absolutely necessary to assimilate with others in society and even to keep a job. Just think of how many networks we have become members of for this class alone. Let alone how many times you have gotten a hold of a coworker or even a boss via facebook or twitter. I think that there are certain offenders who should not have access, such as those who actually used the Internet to commit a crime against a child, however I also think that with monitoring, people who have served there time and are now trying to become productive members of society should have a chance to prove themselves and should not be kept from social networking.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
A) Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article?
1.This article or section has multiple issues. No.
2.This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No.
3.The neutrality of this article is disputed. No.
4.The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. No.
5.This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. No.
6.This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. No.
7.This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject. No.
8.This article requires authentication or verification by an expert. No.
9.This article or section needs to be updated. No.
10.This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region. No.
11.This is missing citations or needs footnotes. No.
12.This article does not cite any references or sources. No.
B) Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:
13.Is it written in a clear and organized way? Yes
14.Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)? The tone of the article does not take sides; however, the article is about an argument and is describing one side of it. However, it is all about the facts and ideas of that side of the argument, not if that side is correct or not.
15.Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)? Yes. There is documented evidence and other linked sources to show where the information came from.
16.Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)? The information is complete. It is just one side of the argument, but it references the other side so you know that the other side of the argument exists and you can follow links to go research it.
1.This article or section has multiple issues. No.
2.This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No.
3.The neutrality of this article is disputed. No.
4.The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. No.
5.This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. No.
6.This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. No.
7.This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject. No.
8.This article requires authentication or verification by an expert. No.
9.This article or section needs to be updated. No.
10.This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region. No.
11.This is missing citations or needs footnotes. No.
12.This article does not cite any references or sources. No.
B) Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:
13.Is it written in a clear and organized way? Yes
14.Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)? The tone of the article does not take sides; however, the article is about an argument and is describing one side of it. However, it is all about the facts and ideas of that side of the argument, not if that side is correct or not.
15.Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)? Yes. There is documented evidence and other linked sources to show where the information came from.
16.Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)? The information is complete. It is just one side of the argument, but it references the other side so you know that the other side of the argument exists and you can follow links to go research it.
My Opinion of Wikipedia
I always had a positive opinion of Wikipedia as a sort of starting point for research and ideas. I agree that Wiki shouldn't be used as a source for research papers because anyone can edit the information so there is no way to be absolutely positive that the information is reliable and unbiased. I understand why some teachers feel the need to remove Wiki from the classroom entirely, because some students will take advantage and only get their information from Wiki, but I still think that those issues can be dealt with and that Wiki has a place in the classroom. In society, the only thing I think is negative about Wikipedia is that some people don't realize that they should not believe what they read on Wiki to be true. It's a good source of information but the reader needs to be responsible and do extra research before forming their opinions.
In my class, I would encourage students to start researching their ideas with Wiki. I think it is a good way for students to get an overview of what they think they want to research and decide if they think they can write a good paper on their topic. Also, I think it is a good place to find other, more academic sources that they would actually be able to cite in their papers.
In my class, I would encourage students to start researching their ideas with Wiki. I think it is a good way for students to get an overview of what they think they want to research and decide if they think they can write a good paper on their topic. Also, I think it is a good place to find other, more academic sources that they would actually be able to cite in their papers.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Wikipedia
a. What is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia project. It is multilingual and run by the non profit organization Wikimedia Foundation.
b. How would you answer the question posed in this piece “How reliable can a source be when anyone can edit it?” The answer would differ depending on who edited the post and how much knowledge they had of the subject. If the leading scientist in a field edited a post about his field, then it would likely be very reliable, but if a mechanic tried to edit it then it likely would not be. In order to use Wikipedia you have to be able to decide these things for yourself and research the topic from other sources to figure out what is and isn't reliable.
c. Who do the creators of Wikipedia place their trust in when it comes to weeding out misinformation? The wisdom of the crowds. It would be nice to think that everyone possesses the knowledge and know how to weed out misinformation, but this isn't the case.
d. Why did founder Larry Sanger leave Wikipedia? He believed that it should give more authority to experts to allow for more credible information.
e. What would abuse or vandalism look like on a Wikipedia page? Obvious misinformation, anonymous posters that don't identify their credentials, people writing mean or hateful things that obviously have no standing and nothing to do with the topic.
f. What do the statistics quoted in the third paragraph of this piece reveal? People still use Wikipedia and they use it frequently. People also still see it as a useful platform for sending and receiving information.
g. Why do you think Wikipedia is so successful? I think it is an easy way to access information that other websites do not talk about. For example, people with insider information on government activities can post it to Wikipedia, even though the government website might not want to share that information.
h. Why might Wikipedia’s creators not want to accept advertising? The point of Wikipedia is to collect unbiased information that people can look for and learn from, they don't want extremely biased adds all over the page encouraging people to think or do things a certain way.
i. How does Wikiscanner help increase the reliability of Wikipedia entries? It traced the IP addresses of the computer from which the information was posted, so that anonymous posters could be checked out. So if a government agency secretly posted biased information, you could find out and know that they were telling the information in a way to make you agree or disagree with them.
b. How would you answer the question posed in this piece “How reliable can a source be when anyone can edit it?” The answer would differ depending on who edited the post and how much knowledge they had of the subject. If the leading scientist in a field edited a post about his field, then it would likely be very reliable, but if a mechanic tried to edit it then it likely would not be. In order to use Wikipedia you have to be able to decide these things for yourself and research the topic from other sources to figure out what is and isn't reliable.
c. Who do the creators of Wikipedia place their trust in when it comes to weeding out misinformation? The wisdom of the crowds. It would be nice to think that everyone possesses the knowledge and know how to weed out misinformation, but this isn't the case.
d. Why did founder Larry Sanger leave Wikipedia? He believed that it should give more authority to experts to allow for more credible information.
e. What would abuse or vandalism look like on a Wikipedia page? Obvious misinformation, anonymous posters that don't identify their credentials, people writing mean or hateful things that obviously have no standing and nothing to do with the topic.
f. What do the statistics quoted in the third paragraph of this piece reveal? People still use Wikipedia and they use it frequently. People also still see it as a useful platform for sending and receiving information.
g. Why do you think Wikipedia is so successful? I think it is an easy way to access information that other websites do not talk about. For example, people with insider information on government activities can post it to Wikipedia, even though the government website might not want to share that information.
h. Why might Wikipedia’s creators not want to accept advertising? The point of Wikipedia is to collect unbiased information that people can look for and learn from, they don't want extremely biased adds all over the page encouraging people to think or do things a certain way.
i. How does Wikiscanner help increase the reliability of Wikipedia entries? It traced the IP addresses of the computer from which the information was posted, so that anonymous posters could be checked out. So if a government agency secretly posted biased information, you could find out and know that they were telling the information in a way to make you agree or disagree with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)