Magazine Cover

Double Entry Journal #5

 Traditional literacy skills are necessary for media literacy skills, however it is necessary to obtain different skill for media.  Offline reading comprehension does not require the determination of how trustworthy a website is or how to research something via a search engine.  These are additional skills that even if you have exceptional traditional literacy skills, you need to become more active with online reading.  It requires more judgement.

Quote:

"Researchers who directed several hundred college students to three bogus Web sites about fictitious nutritional supplements found that half of the students lacked the skills to identify the trustworthiness of the information, yet most thought they had strong research skills (Ivanitskaya, O'Boyle, & Casey, 2006)."

Response:

This is me a lot of the times.  I can admit that I sometimes lack the ability to determine if a site is trustworthy or reputable.  My reading comprehension test scores have always been pretty high and I use the internet for majority of my school work, and I Google EVERYTHING. Any question I have about anything, I just ask Google.  That does not mean that I am going to receive an accurate answer, though!  It worries me because not everyone knows that.  


It's scary how many people actually believe everything on the internet is true.  This commercial always makes me laugh and totally pertains to this topic.

Sources:

David, J. L. (2009, March). Ascd. 

State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model)

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Article title: Everyday Mathematics
Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is.

1. Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article? (A complete list is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/
   Cleanup.)

 No clean-up banners.

Any one of the following cleanup banners means the article is an unreliable source:

This article or section has multiple issues.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.
This article or section needs to be updated.
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.
This article does not cite any references or sources.

2. Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:

Is it written in a clear and organized way?	Yes
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?	Yes
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?	Yes
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?	It's not very long, but it doesn't seem to have any gaps.

3. Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? (For help in determining the general reliability of a source, check out the Knowing What's What and What's Note: The 5 Ws (and 1 "H") of Cyberspace handout.)
   
   Reliable references:Everyday Mathematics, McGraw Hill, A+ Click Everyday Math
   
   Possibly unreliable references:
   
   Definitely unreliable references:
   
    
4. Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?

---

There is no rate on it.  The comments are about 3-5 years old so I believe it's been edited since then.  But, some of the issues is that once it was very much bias toward Everyday Math (Sept. 2007) and then the next comment is from October 2011 which says it is now very bias against Everyday Math. The most recent is April 2012 saying that a sentence was difficult to read.  After reading the comments, I went and reread the article and I'm going to say that it has to have been edited because it doesn't seem extremely bias to me.

---

---

---

5. Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable.

• You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!)
• You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some of its references as sources, but do not use it as a source.
• You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia.

How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support
your answer.

 I believe it is partially reliable.  It isn't extremely bias and gives a basis of the curriculum, but does not give enough to use as a source.  The references can definitely be used as sources though.  There isn't very much information on the Wikipedia page to use it as a source and I just would feel better using the actual Everyday Math website that is cited than to use the Wikipedia article.

Double Entry Journal #4

Quote:

"Even if we see young people as acquiring some of these skills on their own, outside of formal educational institutions, there’s still a strong role for adults to play in insuring that young people develop a critical vocabulary for thinking about the place of media in their lives and engage in meaningful reflection about the ethical choices they make as media producers and participants in online communities."

Response:

It is very important that young people are taught how to use technology in a resourceful and smart way.  Internet is an amazing tool that can help in uncountable ways, but if misused, that damage is permanent.  Wikipedia is a useful tool for learning about a topic or getting general knowledge about something.  I would never recommend citing it, though.  Teachers shouldn't make their students scared to use it though!  It shouldn't be something that they quote in a research paper, or use as a reference.  But, if they don't understand the topic or a time period, Wikipedia can certainly be helpful just the way sets of Encyclopedias are helpful.  The references at the bottom of Wikipedia's articles are also (most likely) from sources that a student can utilize for his/her paper or research.  It's a new generation and quite a change with how rapidly technology has advanced.  But, we have to adapt.  There's no turning back now!

 Just thought this was comical; it shows how it can is available to anyone and EVERYONE is an expert.

Sources:

Jenkins , H. (2007). What wikipedia can teach us about the new media literacies (part one). 

thepianistalex.

Activity #1: Wikipedia

a. What is Wikipedia? 

It's a web-based encyclopedia that is available in many different languages.  It is nonprofit and is open to anyone who wants to be a part of it.

b. How would you answer the question posed in this piece “How reliable can a source be when anyone can edit it?”? 

 It won't work in theory, only in practice.

 
c. Who do the creators of Wikipedia place their trust in when it comes to weeding out misinformation? 

 The public; with so many people monitoring what is said, vandalism will be spotted almost immediately.

 
d. Why did founder Larry Sanger leave Wikipedia? 

 He felt authority should be give to the experts.  He created another site Citizendium that does that.

 
e. What would abuse or vandalism look like on a Wikipedia page? 

 If opinions were posted instead of facts or if untrue things were written.

 
f. What do the statistics quoted in the third paragraph of this piece reveal? 

 That it's very successful and MANY people use it.

 
g. Why do you think Wikipedia is so successful? 

 It's available to everyone.  It is easily accessible.

 
h. Why might Wikipedia’s creators not want to accept advertising? 

 It will complicate things. They are doing more than fine without advertising because of all the donations they receive.

 
i. How does Wikiscanner help increase the reliability of Wikipedia entries?

It catches those that vandalize the site. 

How a Ragtag Band Created Wikipedia

Learned

1.  All volunteers
2.  Funded by donations of the public
3.  More popular than New York Times
4. 1 employee - just the software creator
5. Controversy isn't a big problem because most people agree on neutrality 
6. Only 18% edits are by anons

Agree

1.  Neutral policy. Controversial topics should not have an opinion.
2.  Page History to see the changes to see validity of change and monitor

Disagree

1. Not being able to use it in academics

Very interesting video! I had no idea about a lot of that.  I use Wikipedia when I don't know something and use it for general knowledge.  I had always been told not to trust it, though, since it is open to the public to edit.  This has altered my previous mindset. 

Learning Styles Don't Exist

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this.  On one hand I feel like it is definitely true that everyone learns differently, but is it necessary to cluster and give labels?  Just because I like to highlight and be organized doesn't always mean that I learn things better by visuals.  Sometimes I learn better by hearing a story or by actually handling the material I am learning. 

My stand on this topic is going to agree that learning styles don't exist.  A teacher, however, should experiment with multiple ways of teaching.  A classroom is full of different students and not one of those students is identical.  Just because you use a different color for terms, a different color for definition, etc. does not mean that only the visual learners will grasp it better.  It could be that everyone benefits!

Piccasso

I made my eyes much larger than my other facial features because it has been determined I am a visual learner.  I did, however, make my ear a little bigger because I'm not that far from being an auditory learner also.  My scores came out Visual - 7 Auditory - 6 and Kinesthetic  - 3.  

Videos and color-coded items are effective for my learning.  So in PowerPoint or on the SmartBoard, using different colors for the different types of information would be useful for visual learners to organize the material.  Those are not all of the possibilities, just two simple ones that can help a lot.

Double Entry Journal #3

Quote:

"For example, if the visual student wants to remember what they read, it is better to use a pen to underline the important points. Also, they can use color to highlight the information. For example, they can highlight the definition in pink; the history background and dates in yellow; and the main idea of the topic or sub topics using green."


Response:

I never really knew how I learned.  I knew I wasn't a fan of group work and I learn a lot better on my own.  I definitely highlight EVERYTHING. You know if you borrow a book from me because it is plastered with so many different colors.  I guess this makes me a visual learner.  I am organized, however my handwriting is not exactly up to par. My spelling is pretty good and I like charts to help explain things better to me.  Although, I found other things in the visual and kinesthetic learning that apply to me as well, such as memorizing names and using models of what I'm learning.  I guess this is all mostly guidelines, but it was interesting to see how much I relate to visual learning!

Here is my Modern Geometry book, full of highlighting!

Source:

Web 2.0 and emerging learning technologies/learning styles [Web log message]. (2011, May 19).

Google It!

Double Entry Journal #2

Are Digital Media Changing Language?

Quotes:

 

"However, these neologisms need to be put into perspective. Infusion of written acronyms into everyday speech is a common linguistic process—to wit, RSVP, AWOL, or ASAP."

 "Most schools have abandoned teaching handwriting, but a few have held their ground, to the good fortune of their students."

Response:

I have chosen two quotes because one made me think about the affect (or is effect?) and the other one just had me appalled.  I am guilty for saying aloud "omg," "lol," "brb," and "btdub" (yes, I even shorten 'double-u') in everyday language when talking with my friends.  It's more of a joke than it is a total take over of internet lingo.  I would never imagine these becoming words that are used though; that just seems crazy!  But, then when I read about RSVP, AWOL, and ASAP, it made me think about it.  Once upon a time, those were not abbreviations and after reading it, I honestly had to research what RSVP and AWOL stood for.  I knew what they meant, just not what they stood for.  It is just crazy for me to think that lol, brb, btw, etc. could be widely accepted like those abbreviations.  Really living in a new age!

Now, about how most school are not teaching handwriting anymore.  What?!  Why can't schools teach both keyboard and handwriting?  I do not know how accurate it is, but I was told that a few schools in my home area are no longer teaching cursive.  I understand that it isn't as needed anymore because we CAN type important documents and such, but I still feel that it is important to teach it.  Especially manuscript.  That is something you HAVE to learn.

Because it is important to learn handwriting.

Sources:

 

Baron, N. S. (2009, March). Educational leadership.  

Graff, A. (n.d.). Should kids be taught cursive writing in school.

The Keypad Solution

Quote:

 "She predicts that the number of “textisms” will stop growing as people continue to develop more proficiency in using handheld devices and as the devices continue to grow more sophisticated than simple telephone touch pads."

Response:

I completely agree.  I don't text nearly as much as I used to when in high school, but when I did, I never fell in to the texting lingo.  I spelled all of my words out, used proper grammar, and punctuated correctly.  My only downfall may have been capitalizing my words if it didn't automatically do it for me. Oh, and its (it's).  I fail to put the apostrophe sometimes.  Anyway, I feel that a lot of the reason that people began to shorten the words so much was because of the layout of a phone.  We no longer have to use the horrible T9 style of texting that took forever to type out.  We now have full keyboards.  As to why there was abbreviations and such on instant messaging, I am unsure.  I guess because it was a new thing, people wanted to be creative.  I know when I first got my AIM account 8-10 years ago, I did at first use all the abbreviations and strange spellings (examples:  lyk, gurl, wen, ttyl, g2g, luv).  I'm not proud of this and am slightly embarrassed for admitting to it.  I quickly grew out of the phase because I began to realize that it truly wasn't helping anything and was much easier to just type as if I was typing an essay for school.  

Some of the most common abbreviations that everyone should know by now.

Sources:

Shea, A. (2010, January 22). The keypad solution. 

Shalom International, Inc. (2012, September 6). Legal force. 

 

Poll Everywhere Wordle