The New Literacy

The article The New Literacy by Clive Thompson is about the way kids, and how they write and what has change from the past. The article states how kids today can’t write and technology is to be blamed. Lunsford who is a professor who disagrees says "technology isn’t killing our ability to write. It’s reviving it and pushing our literacy in a bold new directions." According to her study from 2001 to 2006 she collected writing’s samples of emails, in-class assignments, essays and etc. Based on her conclusions she stated that she "did not find a single example of texting speak in an academic paper." Rather than the technology has hurt us, it has made the kids write more after leaving school, because most people in the past after leaving do not ever write a paragraph again unless it is for a purpose. She also found that the students, when the students write they write for an audience which helps them write better. But when they do in-class writing they only write for the professor and the only purpose is for them to get a grade. I agree with Lunsford that writing on the computer is not harming us nor it is affecting the way we write in class. The new literacy is helping us because many we write more when we are on the computer.

1) What is the difference between writing to an audience and writing for a professor?

2) How is writing on the computer different from writing on paper ?

3) Does writing on the computer benefit us more than writing on paper?

R U oNLiNe

The article Online, R U Really Reading by Motoko Rich develops an argument, whether kids of the 21th century are gaining any knowledge from reading online, rather than reading books. The standardized tests of many teenagers have been declining, and some people say that the cause of that is the hours that are spent on the internet. The people who disagree say "that internet has created a new kind of reading," which I think is true but the new reading is not what our schools are prepping us for in our lives. Deborah Konyk who is the mother of Nadia Konyk would like her daughter for a change actually read a book, but her fifteen years-old daughter spends at least six hours in her day on the internet reading and listening to music from different sites.

Does this mean when we are on the internet we are reading or are we not? From the way I see it, I consider reading from the internet is more or no less than reading from a book, they are the same. The definition of the word reading is an interpretation of a text, therefore once a person is reading whether from a book or the internet and they are understanding what has been read or abstract the information from the text, I would believe that is reading. But we have to give account for everyone because everyone is not the same. Some people can read a book and some cannot, some can spend time on the computer and read online and others can’t.

Hunter, Gaudet who is sixteen years of age has a learning disability and he finds that reading from the internet is more comfortable for him. It depends on the person, I feel the older generation is having a hard time reading on the internet that is why they are worrying about their kids reading online. I also think that the board of education should spend more money on education for their students. In these days the world is changing and it has been more technologically advance like reading from the internet not the books. So I think the board of education should change the way they test kids and how we have been thought in school. They should adjust to the new ways of learning rather than staying with the old ways. Maybe we would get better grades or tests and better grades in school.

1) Should the board of education change the way the teachers teach and test the kids in classrooms?
2) How does reading online hurt someone’s reading skills?
3) What is the best for kids books or the internet for reading?

New Media

The article "New Media and the Slow Death of the Written Word" talks about two significant views based on the issue of new media, which is the internet. Some people feel that the new media is destroying the old ways of printed literature. They think the traditional printed literature will slowly fade away. Mark Zeltner who is the author of this article favor’s print on paper over a computer screen. He says "computer screens are hard on the eyes," I agree with what he is saying that the computer is the cause of many peoples having eye problems and been on that computer for a long time is harmful for your eyes. On the other hand I also disagree with his statement "I note that you couldn’t fold a computer screen up and carry it in your book bag," but with today’s technology we have laptops that many carry around, with wireless connection everywhere, and we can log onto the web at anytime.

I personally feel that the new media is a better more efficient and faster way of reading and interpreting text. Just because we used to spend hours and hours researching using books, dictionaries, and encyclopedias do not mean we lack intelligence it simply mean, we now have the technology to get researching done faster. We are known in the age where technology is advancing and it is there for us to use to our advantage, but yet we cannot be lazy and have it do all the work for us. The new technology also allows us to make reading more fun, by using videos, pictures, and other new exciting ways, instead of the boring old ways of printed text. This new idea can help us comprehend the works of writers better. Will printed text ever fade away though? In my opinion I don’t printed text will ever be gone. Just like how radios did not go away after televisions were created, printed text will still be around even if the new media is the new printed text.

Mark Zeltner created ten rules for students who are learning to write for the new-media. For the most part I agree with all of Mark Zeltner rules. Im not saying that a writer should follow his ten rules, all I’m saying that it is a good guide for anyone who is writing for the new-media. Today new-media writers should write in shorter articles for people to read, which Zeltner talks about in his first and second rule. But the shorter is not always better, a new-media writer should try to put the essential points needed to be addressed, of whatever he or she is writing about and make it short so that readers do not get bored. When a person scrolls down a page and looks at a piece of work he or she is reading, if text is too long it can affect the "reader’s ability to comprehend and understand what is written."

Rules four, five and six talks about the usage of pictures, sounds, and video clips. I don’t quite agree that sounds and video clips are more important than words, I just think it is more exciting ways of writing and it is a more entertaining way of reading. With rules eight and nine I could understand hyperlinks could be helpful to the writer, but it can’t also side track a reader from understanding what the point is that the writer is trying to make. I don’t agree with rule ten, I don’t see why a new media writer is any different from a person who is writing for printed media. For my views I think writing is writing no matter where it is, if on a paper or a screen, it doesn’t matter, once the writing finishes his or hers point that they are trying to make and the reader can understand what the writer is writing about.

Resources

1)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3621398.stm


2)http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14639574&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=should-the-legal-age-for-smoking-be-raised--name_page.html#story_continue


3)
http://www.progressiveu.org/165554-should-lawmakers-increase-legal-smoking-age-18-21


4)
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/smoking-age-21

21 to Smoke

Smoking is legal at the age of eighteen, but you cannot gamble or buy alcohol until the age of twenty-one. In my opinion smoking is just as bad as gambling and alcohol consumption, if not worse, thats why the legal age of smoking should be at twenty-one. Starting smoking at an early age can lead to multiple complications later on in life. If someone starts smoking at a young age, it can become addicting and it can lead to many health issues as an adult or the possibilities of complications can even start at an early stage of one’s life. The addiction can lead to cancer, amputations of different body parts, and be harmful in other ways. Although the cigarette companies know that their product is putting many lives at risk, they still make their profits by killing and hurting the people and we are the ones who help contribute to our deaths by buying the cigarettes and encouraging the cigarettes companies to make more. Therefore if we can raise the age which allows people to buy cigarettes now, we can help the people from having fewer health issues and maybe even reduce the number of smokers in the future.

Does an IQ Test Measure a Person's Intelligence

An intelligence quotient test, also known as an IQ test, measures a person's intelligence. I personally dont believe that an IQ test can test someones knowledge. Some factors such as if the person is not a good test taker, or can not concentrate under pressure would cause the IQ test to not be a reliable source when determining there knowledge. Many students are very intelligent but they have difficult time when taking tests. IQ tests are an insufficient way of testing one's true knowledge.

Uniform or Not

Everyone should be allowed to express themselves in any which way they are pleased. Some students are not given the opportunity which prevents them from portraying their true character. Many students are forced to wear uniforms in school, but should that be an obligation. The way person dresses shows their creativity, and it is a way a child can express him or her self. Not wearing uniforms are students only way of being unique and distinguishing themselves by how they would like to be recognized. If a child not wearing his or her uniform, they would be send home or penalized which is disruptive to the student’s learning. Therefore should kids be forced to wear what they don’t want to wear.