Are We Learning Skills that Matter?

The Educational Leadership article, Rigor Redefined, by Tony Wagner, published in October of 2008, refers to the issue of whether schools are teaching students the skills they will need for their future careers and to be good citizens. Tony Wagner set out on a mission to find what a variety of businesses look for in their employees. Teamwork, engaging in good discussions, asking good questions, and mastering “the seven survival skills” were the most common answers. Then, Tony Wagner went and observed schools to see if they are teaching these skills and he found the results were that they were not.

I think most of what we learn is still important and definitely needed. Sure, there are some skills that schools are not teaching what they should, but we are still learning. The first of the seven survival skills is critical thinking and problem solving, which involves asking good questions. We practice that often because many of the papers we write in English are about questioning what we think. Another skill is collaboration and leadership, which involve technology, conference calls, web casts, and net meetings. My school has taught us nothing about those, except for blogs and Google gadgets. Initiative and entrepreneurialism, and effective oral & written communication are two more skills. At the beginning of each year in elementary school, we had to make a goal for ourselves to reach by the end of the year, and throughout all of my school years, we have worked on our communicating skills; we did verbal and written presentations. Through intense note taking, we also worked on another skill of accessing & analyzing information.

What Happened to People Being Most Intelligent?

The video, Web 2.0… The Machine is Us/ing Us, by Michael Wesch, shows the effect of digital text and the web. One of the points the video made was that digital text is more flexible, moveable, and “hyper,” meaning that digital text can link or jump anywhere at the click of a button. Part of the presentation of the video even created a fast hyper vibe. He states that when one types, links, tags, or posts, one is teaching the machine. Another point the author makes is that the web is no longer just linking information, but goes on to say its linking people by sharing, trading, and collaborating. His last significant point identifies that society needs to rethink some things like legal issues, ethics, personal relationships, because of digital advancements.

The title of the video, Web 2.0… The Machine is Us/ing Us, insinuates, or infers that the so-called “machine” is just as smart or smarter than us (people). I think that because people were the ones who created the computer, it cannot be smarter than them. This reminds me of the debate I often hear about whether calculators are smarter than people. Computers are dependent on the user because without them, they are just as smart as the person who programmed them.

I think this video is similar to our prior Google blog. They both strongly suggest the idea that the more linking, sharing, trading, and collaborating between people, the better. But if that’s the case, then why do we have cyber bullying, or unethical events of social networking that have come about because of digital advances.

Freedom of Speech Or Political Correctness?

The Fox News article, NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role, published on October 21, 2010, explains the issue of National Public Radio (NPR) firing Juan Williams after a comment he made on the O'Reilly Factor show. Monday night on the O’Reilly Factor show, Williams said it makes him nervous to fly on airplanes with devout Muslims; "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Despite being fired from NPR, Fox News has now given him a new three year contract.

Apart from whether NPR was fair or unfair, the bigger question is, have we lost our freedom of speech? Blaming all muslims for actions that some Muslim extremest did, could most certainly be considered a bigoted statement. But Williams was sharing his opinion and feelings, which he is paid to do. He wasn’t saying all Muslims should be singled out as terrorists. I think it’s a little hypocritical of NPR, because they are dependent on free speech. Williams’ statement wasn’t bad, they just didn’t agree with it, so they fired him. The Daily Beast says, “But are those remarks so far beyond the pale that he couldn’t continue as an NPR analyst? Or is it that the public radio network’s leadership didn’t agree with Williams—thus reinforcing NPR’s image as a left-leaning operation?” Now if Williams went on another show and slandered NPR, and they fired him, that I think would be understandable because he injured them.

This ongoing issue reminds me of how at school and even in these blogs, we are really being pushed to think, but if we are hammpered with pollitical correctness, do we lose our full potential in that area? Juan Williams says, “Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralasis where you don’t address reality.” The political correctness with terrorists must end. I feel like the 9/11 attack should justify having fears or worries and being able to publicly voice them when getting on a plane. In 2008 during the elections, I often heard people say that if you don’t vote for Hilary Clinton then you are sexist, or if you don’t vote for Barak Obama then you are racist. I definetly did not and do not agree with these statements. Do those people think that if I don’t like terrorist, then I am bigoted?

Williams has worked for NPR for more than ten years, and they didn’t even talk to him about it before they termitnated his contract. "…I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball to eyeball, person to person and have a conversation. I've been there more than 10 years. We don't have a chance to have a conversation about this," Williams told Fox News. NPR’s head honcho chief executive, Vivian Schiller, told the New York Times that she believes in second chances, but didn’t give him one because “he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air.” Schiller said that she had made the decision because, “…At a certain point, if someone keeps not following your guidance, you have to make a break. And that’s what we did.”

Is a “code of ethics” just another way of saying “political correctness” and is that a politically correct way of limiting freedom of speech?

Contador: Doper or Champion?

The New York Times article, 2^nd Failed Test Puts Heat on Contador by Juliet Macur, published on October 4, 2010, explains the issue of three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador’s second failed doping, (drug test). On the eve of the Tour’s final rest day, Contador was tested for drugs in his system. One day later, it was announced that Contador had tested positive for the drug Clenbuterol. Clenbuterol is a weight-loss and muscle-building drug. Contador continues to deny doping and has claimed that it came from his consumption of tainted meat in Spain. A new test will see if it’s possibly from blood transfusions used to boost endurance. If Contador is convicted of a doping offence, he will face a two-year ban from the Tour de France and the loss of his winning title. The investigation has been going on for the past two months and is still continuing.

As hard as I have been working in cross country, if I got to a comparable point of huge success, I cannot imagine just throwing it away by doing something as stupid as doping. I feel like many athletes today just let us, the public, think they are these God almighty talented people, when really they just get all their so called “talent” from drugs. How are we supposed to know who has true talent? What is the world coming to when just anyone with fame or fortune can buy their way to success with drugs? Athletes buying their way to success reminds me of stars being able to buy their way out of legal problems. For example, Lindsey Lohan was able to buy her way out of jail. Athletes and stars have so much, and yet they go and just abuse it. Floyd Landis, another Tour winner, was convicted of doping and had his title taken away. Lance Armstrong, a seven times Tour champion, was tested several times, and every time was clean. I hope Lance Armstrong remains a clean athlete hero of mine.

Clearly, doping will not go away, and even though the drug tests are becoming more and more precise, it doesn’t discount the crime of doping.

Goo Goo Over Google

Footprints in the Digital Age, by Will Richardson, refers to how the online information of who we are, what we do, and what we know can be found by just typing a name. Just like how footprints on the beach represent someone’s presence, digital footprints represent someone’s existence and someone’s ‘googleability’ too. Digital accesibility is important for teachers to teach their pupils, so the students know how to wiki, navigate, create, etc.

I agree with the author that it’s a bit unsettling to know that anyone can Google me and find multiple pages of information about me. For all I know, someone half way around the world could type in a random name, and find out all my personal information. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I guess that’s the very reason why my parents didn’t let any of my sisters or I get a facebook until we were starting high school. Social networking is great, but it comes with hidden risks and despite its name, it eliminates your real social life. Yet, I highly disagree with this author and how he admires that some ridiculous 10-year-old is getting all this attention by doing good things, when she should be outside playing or calling her Grandma. I think his article would be great to discuss in class and not just digitally, because we can collaborate, share, learn, and more.

After reading the article, I was a little unclear. Is the author’s priority the issue of being “Googled well” like the ridiculous 10-year-old, or being able to “Google well” as both a teacher and a student? I am not sure if I should be editing my profile to be better or if I should be learning to Google better.

Personal versus Finacial?

The Fox News article, Do Kids Count? Insurers Stop Selling Child-Only Policies Ahead of ObamaCare Provisions, published September 22, 2010, refers to an issue of President Obama’s healthcare reform. Major insurance companies have stopped offering child-only policies just a few days before the new law kicks in, tomorrow, Thursday, September 23, 2010. Why? Insurance companies say that some parents likely will wait till their children are sick to buy coverage, which will cause unexpected and massive costs to the insurers, or the health insurance companies. According to ObamaCare, all Americans must carry health insurance by the year 2014. As of tomorrow, insurers cannot exclude children under 19 years old with pre-existing conditions. Supporters of ObamaCare feel this is immoral to drop child-only policies. Insurers and those against ObamaCare feel this is an understandable and logical decision based on cost.

I have a significant personal connection with this issue because of my relationship with three children with terminal and pricey health conditions. Two of these children have died, and one of them is currently battling cancer. I cannot imagine an insurance company turning them away.  Yet on the other hand, I cannot imagine how much it costs for other people, especially when they died. For me, it is a conflict between fiscal reality and personal care and moral involvement.

The healthcare reform law by President Obama is a very controversial issue. One of the most sensitive elements of the law involves mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions. What feels right personally is not necessarily what is right financially.

The Mindset of Google

“Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr, refers to the effect Google has had on modern society. Carr believes Google has altered our mental habits and shaped the process of thought. Google does this by providing us with 24/7 access to journal articles, e-books, emails, games, social networks, news, blogs, videos, and more.

Carr’s statement, “What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind,” really impacted me. Typewriters made writing easier, faster, and neater. Google allows people to not even have to think at all or use their own reasoning. Google is seeking maximum digital speed, efficiency, and output with minimal human effort. My parents are the stimulus of my thinking, not Google.

What would the world be like without Google? It has made such an impact on the entire world. The word “Google” has even been made into an official verb in the dictionary. If Google were never started, would Bing be here now? Most people have google as their computer homepage, but is it becoming their mental homepage too?

(http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/)