http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYrZZ68zhSs
Former Presidents of the United States
Friday, November 18, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
WebQuest Tasks
The best one was the Underground Railroad. It's historical, it puts kids in the shoes of the slaves, it gives kids a great opportunity to research information and learn how to make a graphic organizers, it allows students to work in groups, and it allows students to work on writing skills by creating a journal about what they learned.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Social-Networking ban for Sex Offenders: Bad Call?
Quote: The law, which was signed Thursday by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, would prevent registered sex offenders in Illinois from using a social-networking service defined as an "Internet Web site containing profile Web pages...
Reaction: The arguement that is being made has to do with some people thinking that sex offenders should be allowed to have a social media site. There saying that not all people are sex-offenders just because they urinate on the street. They say that there is and has been internet predator cases but that is because it was usually a sting operation where no child was harmed.
"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." This is saying that only eight teenagers were involved in a relationship through the internet and more happened when internet wasn't involved. I think that sex-offenders should be banned because if they have a social media site then they can look at anybody. Using those sites they can most likey find out where they live and who knows what can happen if they decide to "visit". I believe that children would be safer if sex-offenders was banned from social media sites.
Resources: Magid, L. (2009, August 13). Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10309421-238.html
Sex offenders to be banned from twitter and social network sites. (2009, August 13). . Retrieved from http://www.blogherald.com/2009/08/13/sex-offenders-to-be-banned-from-twitter-and-social-network-sites/
Other Sources: http://www.blogherald.com/2009/08/13/sex-offenders-to-be-banned-from-twitter-and-social-network-sites/
Reaction: The arguement that is being made has to do with some people thinking that sex offenders should be allowed to have a social media site. There saying that not all people are sex-offenders just because they urinate on the street. They say that there is and has been internet predator cases but that is because it was usually a sting operation where no child was harmed.
"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." This is saying that only eight teenagers were involved in a relationship through the internet and more happened when internet wasn't involved. I think that sex-offenders should be banned because if they have a social media site then they can look at anybody. Using those sites they can most likey find out where they live and who knows what can happen if they decide to "visit". I believe that children would be safer if sex-offenders was banned from social media sites.
Resources: Magid, L. (2009, August 13). Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10309421-238.html
Sex offenders to be banned from twitter and social network sites. (2009, August 13). . Retrieved from http://www.blogherald.com/2009/08/13/sex-offenders-to-be-banned-from-twitter-and-social-network-sites/
Other Sources: http://www.blogherald.com/2009/08/13/sex-offenders-to-be-banned-from-twitter-and-social-network-sites/
Monday, November 7, 2011
Wikipedia Worksheet
1) It does not have any cleanup banners.
2) It is written in a clean and organized way. It does not take sides. It just tells about the person. The article looks complete. There is not gaps and it gives all the important information.
3) The references listed at the end of the article are realible. The facts mentioned are true. For example Celine Dion.com is a realible source.
4) I would give the discussion an A because there isn't any negative comments, it just gives more facts about the article.
5) I would rate this article as very realible. The information is accurate and the sources used seems legit.
2) It is written in a clean and organized way. It does not take sides. It just tells about the person. The article looks complete. There is not gaps and it gives all the important information.
3) The references listed at the end of the article are realible. The facts mentioned are true. For example Celine Dion.com is a realible source.
4) I would give the discussion an A because there isn't any negative comments, it just gives more facts about the article.
5) I would rate this article as very realible. The information is accurate and the sources used seems legit.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Wikipedia
1) Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
2) I would tell them to check there source to make sure it's accurate.
3) They have people called Encyclopædia Britannica checking the articles to make sure it's not vandalized and that it's accurate.
4) He was tired of endless content battles and feeling he had a lack of support from Jimmy Wales.
5)
6) A lot of people use Wikipedia. It has been used in schools and even court cases.
7) It's an easy site to get information. You don't have to look at any more sources because Wikipedia usually has the information that people want.
8) They might think that people will take advantage of the cite.
9) It checks the information to make sure it's accurate.
2) I would tell them to check there source to make sure it's accurate.
3) They have people called Encyclopædia Britannica checking the articles to make sure it's not vandalized and that it's accurate.
4) He was tired of endless content battles and feeling he had a lack of support from Jimmy Wales.
5)
7) It's an easy site to get information. You don't have to look at any more sources because Wikipedia usually has the information that people want.
8) They might think that people will take advantage of the cite.
9) It checks the information to make sure it's accurate.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wikipedia
Quote: Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity to get students involved in ongoing conversations about writing for a real audience, meeting genre expectations,establishing credibility, revising for clarity
and purpose, and entering public discussionsabout the nature of truth, accuracy, and neutrality.
Reaction: I thought the article was interesting. I learned that they write up to date accurate knowledge of events. For example, they had an article about the Virginia Tech shooting minutes after it happened. The second thing I learned is how much students are learning from Wikipedia. One teacher in the article referred it as a "spring board" because when students can access information easily and read then they ask questions and want to look up more to find the answer. The third thing I learned was that it contains more than 90 different languages. It is amazing that there is a site that has that many language options. I'm surpised that they are encouraging teachers to talk about Wikipedia to students. In my high school teachers always told us to never use that site because it was unrealible. Another surprise was learning how fast they get information onto the site. It seems like it's up right after something big happened. The question I have is why is it considered unrealible when there are people who check the information to make sure of its authenticity? I think students should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because for the most part it's accurate and it's easy to get to.
References: Crovitz, D., & Smoot, W. S. (2009). Wikipedia: Friend, not foe. English Journal, 98.3, 91-97. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/archival/EnglishJournalArticle2.pdf
Reliability of wikipedia. In (2011 (Updated)). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Other Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
and purpose, and entering public discussionsabout the nature of truth, accuracy, and neutrality.
Reaction: I thought the article was interesting. I learned that they write up to date accurate knowledge of events. For example, they had an article about the Virginia Tech shooting minutes after it happened. The second thing I learned is how much students are learning from Wikipedia. One teacher in the article referred it as a "spring board" because when students can access information easily and read then they ask questions and want to look up more to find the answer. The third thing I learned was that it contains more than 90 different languages. It is amazing that there is a site that has that many language options. I'm surpised that they are encouraging teachers to talk about Wikipedia to students. In my high school teachers always told us to never use that site because it was unrealible. Another surprise was learning how fast they get information onto the site. It seems like it's up right after something big happened. The question I have is why is it considered unrealible when there are people who check the information to make sure of its authenticity? I think students should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because for the most part it's accurate and it's easy to get to.
References: Crovitz, D., & Smoot, W. S. (2009). Wikipedia: Friend, not foe. English Journal, 98.3, 91-97. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/archival/EnglishJournalArticle2.pdf
Reliability of wikipedia. In (2011 (Updated)). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Other Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)