PLN Editorial

Summary

“Dissent, Guns, & ammo”  by the Editorial board of the New York Times is a peek of what people really think of Gun rights and a peek of a man named Dick Metcalf really wants to give the country a fresh of gun rights but it backfires on him. Metcalf wrote and published an editorial  over the second amendment “The right bear arms”.  As soon they public read this editorial they were furious about it, because the public does not like “guns” and what the effects they have on other people. After Metcalf wrote the article he immediately went into retirement because two gun manufacturers threatened to end business if metcalf was not fired. This article shows how people reacted to a touchy subject even tho metcalf was just trying trying to refresh the reality of the second amendment.  

Response

“Dissent, Guns, & ammo”  by the Editorial board of the New York Times really makes me think about if Dick Metcalf should have been fired because this article is not true in many ways for many people.  Opinion plays a great role in the editorial because a lot of readers would say that Metcalf never should have been fired in the first place!  Metcalf was just trying to give a new perspective on gun rights. Metcalf says in his article  “it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights.”  Then the public became sarcastic about it and said “Imagine that, a healthy exchange of ideas in the gun debate. This is exactly what is needed by a nation suffering tens of thousands of gun deaths each year”, But yes that is what a nation needs right now. A refresher on what is right and wrong, it not the guns fault if it goes and kills someone it the persons fault who shot that person. This article is one that is based on a opinion that is very disagreeable, but a great one to show how the public is so touchy on this subject.

PLN 10

Summary

"You'll Never Learn" by Annie Murphy Paul is a great eye opener to students of all ages, it is showing that student's can not resist multitasking and it's not helping them at all. Paul Goes on to say in an observation in 15 minutes students only spent 65% of their time doing school work. The other 35% of the time the students spent on Facebook or texting. She Then Explains in a study that the more that students try to multitask it becomes harder and harder to take in new knowledge. The students learning becomes more shallower the more they multitask. She explains that the big thing that distract students is phones. That can involve text messages, Facebook, other social media apps that make the students phones vibrate which immediately distract the student . All together students have gotten worse and worse about multitasking with phones, computers, and even talking with friends, all of these things are not helping students in anyway.


Response

"You'll Never Learn" by Annie Murphy Paul is correct because students are growing worse with multitasking while doing school work, which is not helping students in any way. While studying students are spending half of their time on electronic devices. This is true, as a student, doing this is a common thing for an average student to "try" to multitask. Multitasking is making students dumber, it is making students get distracted more and more. This is making is harder for students to learn more material and new important knowledge for the future. Then when we don't learn new material, it affects us in big ways .This can affect us in out future life, such as trying to get into collage, a job, and other things that need the knowledge we forget. Multitasking over all is just making it harder and harder to learn far an average student.

PLN 9

 Summary

"Schools would be great if it weren't for the kids" By Valerie Strauss is stating that the motivation of students is not what it needs to be and is affecting them.  Strauss is trying to explain her viewpoint by a sit-com, the big idea that the two characters are telling is that an average student does not care or is not "motivated" enough and everyone is blaming the student for that. Then, Strauss develops two great questions from a non-economist point of view. The first asks “Motivated to do what, exactly?" Anything they’re told, no matter how disengaging, inappropriate, or, well, demotivating (Strauss)? Then, the second question, informed by decades of progress in the field of psychology, is: “What kind of motivation are we talking about here?” In these these two questions Strauss is trying get what the motivation is to the kids and what kind of motivation to them.

Response

"Schools would be great if it weren't for the kids" By Valerie Strauss is correctly stating that students are not being motivated like they used to be. Strauss goes on to say about how she "...see students made to cram facts into their short-term memories for a test, practice a series of decontextualized skills on yet another worksheet, listen passively to a lecture...(Strauss)". Strauss is trying to prove how students to care or are not motivated to do any of these things. She then explains how the students are being threatened to be motivated but then Strauss says those threats are ineffective but counterproductive. Students are are being thought of only having one type of motivation, which is not true. Students need can be motivated by many things such as curiosity and ambition; parental expectations; the desire to get into a ‘good’ college; inspiring or intimidating teachers; peer pressure”( Samuelson). Students are getting  bad rep for not being motivated, but in some cases can be a true statement from different view points.

PLN 8

Summary

 "What teachers really want to tell parents" by Ron Clark, is a great eye opener for what actually goes on between parents and the teacher. The big idea that Clark is trying to across is that teachers are having a hard time being honest with the parents because they are scared on how they will respond. Teachers also want to be honest with the parents to let them know what is actually going on in class with the student. The teachers say that the parents need to let there kids take on the consequences the student deserves. Teachers said that parents need to trust them, in what they do and teach with the kids.

Response 

 "What teachers really want to tell parents" by Ron Clark is correctly proving that teachers really need to be honest with parents and be open to what actually goes on in the class room. When Clark is explaining how the teachers feel, he puts in that the teachers feel scared in a way. As is the teachers are afraid of the response they are going to get from the students parents if the teachers tells them what is actually going on in class. Clark then goes on to explain that is a teacher needs to tell a parents what there child did today in class good/bad the teacher is afraid the response. Now Clark makes a quote that says "Trust us. At times when I tell parents that their child has been a behavior problem, I can almost see the hairs rise on their backs. They are ready to fight and defend their child, and it is exhausting" (Clark 1). Clark is showing that parents cant always be there for there kid, they need to take there own punishment for what they deserve. "we are vexed by those parents who stand in the way of those lessons"(Clark 1). Teachers need there space to teach and give the students life lessons. In first quote it says "trust us", the parents need to trust what the teacher is doing in class to help and gave a education to there kids. After all, that is their profession, to teach. Clark is trying get across to the reader that teachers want to be Honest but they really don't to deal with those kind of parents.

PLN 7

Summary

The video "Web 2.0...The Machine is Us/ing Us" by Michael Wesch, demonstrates the view that the web or the web 2.0, as he calls it, is us, or is using us to learn from the users of the internet. He begins by demonstrating how "linear" the old ways of learning and communicating were, by just writing with a pencil; erasing and rewriting single thoughts.  Wesch then transitions into explaining how words are not just words, but that words become "content", that can be expanded on through other peoples input.  Now a simple word can be clicked on and expanded, and millions of peoples input on a single topic or word can now be accessed.  With that access, and the millions of people who input data related to a single thought, people now can access infinite amounts of knowledge that before, would have taken hours of research in a library for every to come up with; all with a simple click of a mouse.  In the past, what came out of a pencil, directed by our fingertips, was just extremely limited to just our thoughts.  Now, what comes out of our fingertips on a keyboard is just the beginning to a world of knowledge, inputed and accessed by millions of people a second. Wesch makes a point that the "internet" is so much faster than writing on paper; and how it gives the world the freedom and expression, and the ability to both obtain and share knowledge and is faster and more convenient than ever before.

Response

The video "Web 2.0...The Machine is Us/ing Us" by Michael Wesch is correctly demonstrating that The web 2.0 is using us to learn and to connect other people around the world. . Wesch also is correctly demonstrating that writing is "linear", this is so true, living in a world with "content". Wesch explains this by telling us "content"can be expanded on through other peoples input.  For example, as a class using the web is a almost a every day thing, it is so helpful to a class to have the web at its finger tips. A class puts in "Content" everyday into the web, by posting blogs, sharing papers, blogging on others posts, and watching and commenting on videos. Wesch talks about how anyone can search up anything with a click of a mouse and come up millions of websites and more knowledge in that search. It is the "internet", which is so much faster than the writing on paper and trying to figure stuff out with books. You have the world at your fingertips,"Web 2.0...The Machine is Us/ing Us" is s great way of demonstrating how the "internet" is the new and best thing out there.

PLN 6

Summary

In "The Case Against High-School Sports" by Amanda Ripley Defends that football should be removed completely in high schools around the country. Ripley is proving this point by saying that many schools are not paying enough attention to the academics but, to the sports. This can lead to major problems Ripley clearly states, such as big financial problems for the schools and the district. Ripley makes a big point that a lot american high schools are promoting sports instead of a solid academic education. Which she proves in a story about a Texas school that really tried to push for sports instead for academics. Ripley is trying to prove a big point that schools need to just pull out football or any sport necessary to have a stable academic education for their students.

Response

"The Case Against High-School Sports" by Amanda Ripley is not correct because students need after schools sports, kids need to stay active after school, to get their minds off of homework, friend problems, and maybe family problems if needed. It's also something fun to do for the student and parents to watch. Parents are a big part of the schools sports, they contribute greatly to the sports. Ripley shows a statement made by James Coleman, and the paragraph say" a visitor entering an American high school would likely be confronted, first of all, with a trophy case. His examination of the trophies would reveal a curious fact: The gold and silver cups, with rare exception, symbolize victory in athletic contests, not scholastic ones … Altogether, the trophy case would suggest to the innocent visitor that he was entering an athletic club, not an educational institution (Colman). This statement is not exactly correct, this might be a good thing that the student is being presented with this. If the student wants the school activites than great it will help them. Ripely gives a big example to her side by showing us, the reader, that a Texas schooled had shut down their whole football program including many other sports. The reason they did this is because the school was running out of money. But before this the science lab was shut down, didn't have a music program in years, cut many teachers, But after all of that the school kept all its sports. The flaw of this is shown when kids start to become very angry at the school, they don't have anything to look forward to after school. Which can be very depressing for many kids because they need the after school sports. If people started taking out high school sports the kids would not be very happy with it. All students need to have a chance to be be in after school sports.

PLN 5

Summary

In “Footprints in the Digital Age” by Will Richardson features a eye opening point about how students need to be more connected with the web in everyday life, in or out of the classroom. Richardson shows that students should be self-directed learners must be adept at building and sustaining networks. He also talks about Networking: The New Literacy, Which is  social Web technologies are having a huge influence on students. Transparent and Trackable is another issue he brings up in his article. Richardson also brings up his last point about what students should know. What Richardson is trying to get across is that students are being able to be googleable more and more.

Response

“Footprints in the Digital Age” by Will Richardson is correctly stating that students should be able to be googled at this age because it can help them in job opportunities, The student is making themselves Googleable posting blog posts, YouTube videos, Flickr photos, and Facebook groups .Richardson says, "Publishing content online not only begins the process of becoming "Googleable," it also makes us findable by others who share our passions or interests."(Richardson). Students are making them selves Googeable and might not even know it. Such as Richards says that posting content (blog posts, YouTube videos, Flickr photos, and Facebook groups) is a great way to get a student Gooleable. A recent survey in 2007 announced that 80 percent of young people that are online are networking. Some about good stuff and others about bad, which is correct. That 70 percent of them are regularly discussing education-related topics, in which they are creating all sorts of content. Students are using online tools, which is also correct. As students are growing faster in technology, the student is learning much more than they are taught from parents and teachers. instead the student is doing it all by themselves and websites they go on to. The point is those websites have things that the student can post and make them selves googleable In the process. Students are and kids are becoming more and more googleable, whether the teacher, parents, or kids like it or not.