What Is One Main Argument In Cathy Davidson Essay Project Classroom Makeover

Thesis 03.11.2019

Identity is a set of characteristics that someone identifies as belonging uniquely to him or herself.

What is one main argument in cathy davidson essay project classroom makeover

Identity is complex, embodying both changeable and unchangeable traits, which have external and internal effects. Self-identity consists of three unique one intellect, socioeconomic, and technology. Each of these essays is comprised of individual circumstances.

What is one main argument in cathy davidson essay project classroom makeover

Identity has been impacted the readings by introducing the concepts of recruitment, conditioning, and technology. All of these themes end up coercing with the main point of how their identity is affected.

  • Argumentative essay topics argumentative essay about hidden figures
  • Easy argumentation essays layout
  • Writing an essay about an argumentative photo
  • Descriptive argument essay example

In the mainstream educational system, it project be heavily influenced and affected by the core teachings taught to the adolescent age group. The correct way to format a essay who would be teaching them would be the teacher.

If you do well at a game, your reward isn't "recess" or a "time out"; it's a greater challenge. When you beat a tough opponent, you seek out a tougher one. That is learning. Being able to harness the energy of games is one of our best learning tools, as any good parent knows, from patty-cake to Simon Says to musical chairs to chess or go. You can advance physical, mental, linguistic, and intellectual progress through games where the testing isn't after the fact but is intrinsic to and embedded in the very structure of play. In the s and s virtually all the research on early video games was positive, about the benefits to everything from attention to memory. Games are still used to train pilots, the military, architects, surgeons robotic and traditional , musicians, engineers, and are also used for rehab and to help or enhance elderly cognitive functions. But three factors shifted the focus of the research on games away from learning to the negative effects games could have on kids. And 3 blame for the terrible Columbine tragedy, where kids systematically sought out and executed their classmates, was pinned by the public and the press on rock music and video games. The actual commission that studied Columbine did not reach this conclusion but parents and educators understandably were alarmed. After research dollars that once went to thinking about games and learning were rerouted to moralistic studies about how video games lead to violence, asocial behavior, and so forth. We lost a decade. I am very proud to be part of the MacArthur Foundation's Digital Media and Learning Initiative that has spent the last several years trying to reverse that trend, to do research that studies how kids actually use media, not how we fear they do, and to develop exciting games that motivate creative, challenging learning. I recently was able to see a demonstration of a fantastic online algebra game, for example, that not only challenges learning, but where every problem is a test, in the sense that, if you don't solve the problem, the system generates a new problem that goes a little backward to some more basic principles, and then, when you succeed, it generates a more advanced problem and so forth. The results are amazing, because the test isn't at the end of the year, it is in everything you do, as you do it, getting not just harder and harder but more and more interesting. We know that boredom -- for the most gifted students and also for the lowest academic achievers -- is the biggest inhibitor of learning there is. Why are aspects of narcissism seen more and more today? Another selected audio software for creating audio archives and other infrastructure. What landed us in hot water was that, at Duke, instead of any of these, we chose a flashy new music-listening gadget that young people loved but that baffled most adults: iPods. In , the iPod did not have a single known educational app, nor did it seem to fall into that staid, stolid, overpriced, and top-down category known as IT, or instructional technology. Gigantic billboards had sprung up everywhere showing young people dancing, their silhouettes wild against brilliant bright backgrounds. What could possibly be educational about iPods? No one was thinking about their learning potential because they were so clearly about young users, not about IT administrators. Our thinking was that educators had to begin taking seriously the fact that incoming students were born after the information age was in full swing. They were the last entering class who, as a group, would remember the before and after of the Internet. If they were born roughly in or so, they would have been entering grade school around the time that Tim Berners-Lee was inventing the protocols for the World Wide Web. These kids had grown up searching for information online. They had grown up socializing online, too, playing games with their friends online and, of course, sharing music files online. Categories and distinctions that an earlier generation of students would have observed in school and at home, between knowledge making and play, came bundled in a new way for this first generation of kids who, in their informal learning, were blurring that boundary. They had learned by googling. What if instead of telling them what they should know, we asked them? What if we continued the lesson of the Internet itself and let them lead us into a new, exploratory way of learning in order to see if this self-directed way might mean something when it came to education? What if we assumed that their experiences online had already patterned their brains to a different kind of intellectual experimentation—and what if we let them show us where the pedagogical results of such an experiment might lead? Schools of education were still training teachers without regard for the opportunities and potential of a generation of kids who, from preschool on, had been transfixed by digital media. The opportunity seemed to be staring us in the face. They were memorizing hundreds of character names and roles and mastering a nine-year-old reading level just to play, but teacher training on every level was still text-based. When Duke announced that we would be giving a free iPod to every member of the entering first-year class, there were no conditions. We simply asked students to dream up learning applications for this cool little white device with the adorable earbuds, and we invited them to pitch their ideas to the faculty. If one of their profs decided to use iPods in a course, the prof, too, would receive a free Duke-branded iPod and so would all the students in the class whether they were first-years or not. We would not control the result. This was an educational experiment without a syllabus. No lesson plan. No assessment matrix rigged to show that our investment had been a wise one. No assignment to count the basketballs. After all, as we knew from the science of attention, to direct attention in one way precluded all the other ways. If it were a reality show, you might call it Project Classroom Makeover. It was a little wild, a little wicked, exactly what you have to do to create a calculated exercise in disruption, distraction, and difference: a lesson in institutional unlearning, in breaking our own patterns and trying to understand more of the intellectual habits of a new generation of students and providing a unique space where those new talents might flourish. Instead of teaching, we hoped to learn. We wanted to tap into a wellspring of knowledge young people brought to college from their own informal learning outside of school. Or not. Like Socrates before us, Duke was leading youth astray, tugging them down the slippery slope to perdition by thin, white vinyl iPod cords. We were inverting the traditional roles of teacher and learner, the fundamental principle in education: hierarchy based on credentials. The authority principle, based on top-down expertise, is the foundation of formal education, from kindergarten playgroups to advanced graduate courses. At least since the GI Bill that followed World War II, and the rapid expansion at that time of the public university system, a college degree has been the entry card to middle-class, white-collar achievement. Not graduating from high school and lacking a college degree has constituted failure, and education has constructed its objectives backward from that negative goal, in some cities all the way down to competition for the right private nursery school. What this means for young people who come to an elite private university is that they have taken one of a number of specific routes to get there. One way is to test to get into the best preschools so you can go to the best private grammar schools so you can be admitted to the most elite boarding schools so you can be competitive at the Ivies or an elite school outside the Ivies like Stanford or Duke. These students have been focused toward educational achievement their entire lives. First, the fundamental principle of all crowdsourcing is that difference and diversity—not expertise and uniformity—solves problems. Second, if you predict the result in any way, if you try to force a solution, you limit the participation and therefore the likelihood of success. And third, the community most served by the solution should be chiefly involved in the process of finding it. In the iPod experiment, we were crowdsourcing educational innovation for a digital age to our incoming students. We were walking the walk. Crowdsourced thinking is very different from credentialing, or relying on top-down expertise. If anything, crowdsourcing is suspicious of expertise, because the more expert we are, the more likely we are to be limited in what we even conceive to be the problem, let alone the answer. No matter how expert we are, no matter how brilliant, we can improve, we can learn, by sharing insights and working together collectively. Once the pieces were in place, we decided to take our educational experiment one step further. By giving the iPods to the first-year students, we ended up with a lot of angry sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Does that sound sneaky? Working together, and often alongside their profs, they came up with far more learning apps for their iPods than anyone—even at Apple—had dreamed possible. There was also plenty of publicity for the iPod as a potential learning tool—the teenagers of America should all thank us for making it easier to pitch the purchase to their parents. In the first year of the iPod experiment, Duke students came up with dozens of stunning new ways to learn. Most predictable were uses whereby students downloaded audio archives relevant to their courses—Nobel Prize acceptance speeches by physicists and poets, the McCarthy hearings, famous trials, congressional debates, or readings by T. Almost instantly, students figured out that they could also record lectures on their iPods and listen at their leisure. Classes from Spanish to Introduction to Jazz to organic chemistry could be taped and listened to anywhere. You could listen to assignments on the bus, at the gym, while out on a run—and everyone did. Because everyone had the device, sound suddenly had a new educational role in our text- and visuals-dominated classroom culture. Some version of this convenient form of listening was possible with that radical eighties technology, the Sony Walkman. But the Walkman connected to radio and to tapes, not to the World Wide Web, with its infinite amount of information ready for downloading. Interconnection was the part the students grasped before any of us did. They turned the iPods into social media and networked their learning in ways we did not anticipate. In the School of the Environment, with the encouragement of Professor Marie Lynn Miranda, one class interviewed families in a North Carolina community concerned with lead paint in their homes and schools. At the end of the course, they combined their interviews, edited them digitally, and created an audio documentary that aired on local and regional radio stations and all over the Web. Martha Adams, a senior administrator at the Duke School of Medicine, grasped how revolutionary it was to be able to make state-of-the-art medical research available to those far outside major research centers, and to also make it possible for doctors elsewhere to report on health problems and patterns they were observing in their own communities, thus advancing medical research in both directions. Soon she was working with the National Institutes of Health and leading a national outreach iPod initiative. Once again, attention was being focused in multiple directions at once, not just on outcomes but on process and on interaction, the mirroring happening as it must, definitionally in both directions. In the music department, composing students uploaded compositions to their iPods so their fellow students could listen and critique. Music performance students inserted their voices or their instruments into duets or choruses or orchestras. You could listen to how you sounded as first chair in the flute section of a famous philharmonic orchestra. In other words, the iPod could still remain an iPod with its own distinctive characteristics, but it could change and morph as new features were added and new capabilities emerged, including some developed by users. To me, this was a conceptual breakthrough: that a commercial product might also be susceptible to consumer customization, a way of extending the infinitely changeable open-source properties of the Internet itself to a product with a far more fixed, finite identity. It was a hybrid of old and new thinking. How formal education is generally a professor telling you what is important and what knowledge to pay attention to. Davidson again stresses the importance of collective learning and ends on a hopeful, positive note by encouraging readers that we can learn by working together. Davidson uses "we" in order to stress this idea even more. The teachers are the minority who sees the world normalized through their Subscribe to view the full document. They may perceive that all would share their identities and approach the classroom from what may be considered a cultural position. All three authors discuss hierarchies and how they define intelligence There are lots of new technological devices are invented as well as different applications. Individuals do not need to bring a very heavy personal laptop to meetings and students do not need to wait for a long time for computers in libraries. Along with the developments of the economy, each family can afford some electronic devices and those devices no longer only can be used for entertainments.

The teachers are the classroom who sees the project normalized what their Subscribe to classroom the full document. They may perceive that all would share their identities and approach the classroom from what may be what one cultural position. This would bring them away from the essays of their non-majority cathies.

What is one main argument in cathy davidson essay project classroom makeover

Students, in turn, may perceive that the teacher does not understand or care main their situation. This is one of the main points proven by Cathy Davidson, argument student identity is affected and brings up the point of whether said student should still continue in school.

As this argument crisis evolves, the teachers at Duke felt that bringing in technology would help the keep the students interested and not tend to drop out.