In closing...

I had an eye opening experience in this class. I’m a “digital immigrant” and my online presence is minimal at best. I prefer direct communication. I realized that the internet can be beneficial when used in moderation. One such example would be the homeless man in D.C. who uses Facebook and social media to advocate for others like him. It has given me some great ideas on how I can advocate for Veterans through social media.

I really liked our group discussions whether they for our in class writings or topics in general. It helped me brainstorm and come up with ideas. For example, in one of my group discussions I was able to come up a thesis for my argument paper. I was reluctant to work in a group based on my experiences in another class; I was pleasantly surprised in this class. Receiving and giving feedback from my peers was very beneficial.

English is not a scary as it may seem. Although, I still find some of the syntax and grammar confusing compared to Spanish. The blogging portion of the class has helped with me with my freelance writing. I also learned spell check can be a dangerous tool. Spell check still needs a human review as I’m “found” of dogs instead of I’m “fond” of dogs. This class has also empowered me. I was really apprehensive about taking an English class. I dropped out of High School and never took an English class. I did not know what to expect.

Overall I really liked the class. It was engaging and interactive and I learn best that way. It was hard for me 

to brain storm on the spot but I enjoy expanding my knowledge and pushing myself. Just like math, writing 

papers takes investment of time and time management skills. I found that it was very challenging juggling 

school, family and work. It was an excellent introduction class to college.

Argument Essay

James Flanders

Professor Goff

English 1010

11 August 2014

Pros and Cons of Technology Use by Children

There is a great concern about the long term effects multi-media has, especially the internet and gaming, on children and the society overall. It is my belief that multi-media is potentially harmful for children unless used appropriately and in moderation.

According to a New York Times article in January of 2010, “If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online,” the average young American, ages 8-18, spends over 7 ½ hours a day using technology devices. Many of them are multitasking with these technology devices packing in an astonishing average of 11 hours of media contact into those 7 1/2 hours. Further, the authors of the study did not include the combined two hours of texting and talking on a cell phone because it’s not considered by them as media use. Subsequently, children’s offline activities are being robbed by technology due to constant immersion in technology.

Ten years ago Korea turned its economy around by focusing on digital technology. As a result, 90% of Korean children use the internet in their daily lives. South Korea is known for its legendary internet cafes, called "PC bangs” which offer 24 hours of internet access to children. “South Korea has become one of the first countries to confront the fallout of the digital revolution” (Frontline, Digital Nation). An extreme example of this is when a South Korean man killed his infant son in order to play video games at an internet café (Reuters).  This demonstrates an impact on society where children are being neglected by parents or they themselves are becoming addicted and in turn may neglect their own children as adults. As a defense paralegal I personally saw the effects of internet addiction in my client’s lives and how their children were neglected. Often these very young children were left to fend for themselves with no adult supervision. My boss and I struggled to understand this phenomenon.

One of the major impacts of the use of multimedia is health. In South Korea children have reported health issues associated with computer over use while at Internet rescue camps like eye strain and ear complications (Frontline, Digital Nation).  Excessive multimedia is contributing to obesity.  In America, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Childhood Overweight and Obesity) indicated obesity affects 17% of all children the United States. This rate is triple from the previous generation. According to the CDC technology is one of the contributing factors:

Children 8—18 years of age spend an average of 7.5 hours a day using entertainment media, including TV, computers, video games, cell phones, and movies. Of those 7.5 hours, about 4.5 hours is dedicated to viewing TV. Eighty-three percent of children from 6 months to less than 6 years of age view TV or videos about 1 hour and 57 minutes a day. TV viewing is a contributing factor to childhood obesity because it may take away from the time children spend in physical activities; lead to increased energy intake through snacking and eating meals in front of the TV; and, influence children to make unhealthy food choices through exposure to food advertisements (CDC). 

 It is well known that obesity contributes to high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes, kidney disease and joint issues.  These health issues are not longer confined to older adults. This also demonstrates another impact on society where health care costs are climbing higher and higher.

Another rising cost in society is in education. This is not only a monetary cost but an educational cost as well. Heavy multimedia user’s grades are affected and studies have shown multitaskers are less efficient in their schoolwork. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation study, there is a correlation between multimedia use and grades. Children who are heavy multimedia users reported grades of “C” or lower (Rideout).  One such example would be from the Digital Nation show where over the last year, a student named Young-il dropped from the top half of his class to the bottom. He indicated he played 7-8 hours of online games and all night on the weekends. When it comes to multitasking, Prof. Sherry Turkle who teaches at MIT said the following:

I teach the most brilliant students in the world. But they have done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool-Aid and believing that a multitasking learning environment will serve their best purposes. There really are important things you cannot think about unless it's still and you're only thinking about one thing at a time. There are just some things that are not amenable to being thought about in conjunction with 15 other things. (Frontline, Digital Nation)

I learned in my Speech class, to be a mindful listener is to be 100% attentive. This cannot be done with multitasking. Professor Clifford Nass from Standford University conducted a study demonstrating that the brain can’t multitask. The brain is shifting gears from task to task rather than handling them simultaneously as it does, so it becomes less efficient. One such study participant thought his multitasking was great, but it turned out that was not the case at all. Further, other students confirmed constant interruptions from multitasking affected their writing (Frontline, Digital Nation).

Not only multitasking with technology affects students’ ability to learn, it also impacts attention spans. A PewResearch Internet Project surveyed nearly 2,500 teachers and found that 87% believe new technologies are creating an "easily distracted generation with short attention spans" and 64% say today's digital technologies "do more to distract students than to help them academically" (Purcell).  I have seen the effects of the distraction with the younger generation of students who grew up in the technology evolution. These students were distracted by multimedia such as cell phones and computers. I witnessed one student answer a call in class in the middle of instruction. How could they possible learn when they are focused on a text message rather than the instructor? A New York Times article stated the following, “Researchers say the lure of these technologies, while it affects adults too, is particularly powerful for young people. The risk, they say, is that developing brains can become more easily habituated than adult brains to constantly switching tasks — and less able to sustain attention” (Richtel).

Despite the negative impact technology can have on society, there are positive aspects. Game systems such as Nintendo Wii are being used in physical therapy. The John Hopkins Institute has shown, though no substitute for exercise, video games can be an effective tool for therapy. “ In one study, Robbins reported that the virtual reality aspect of gaming – which allows individuals to perform tasks they are unable to perform in real life – proved a useful tool in neuro-rehabilitation of cerebral palsy and stroke patients” (Dev Med Child Neurol 2005;47:628-35; Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2218-23).  I have used the Wii in my own home for family activities and as an exercise tool for my children. Games requiring multiple players, when used moderation, has created family bonding time.

There are also games on my home computer that are played for educational purposes. My children use the computer to play games for educational benefits. There are many countries that see these benefits as well: “For children aged 2-8, carefully chosen TV programs, movies and computer games offer many developmental and social benefits. In addition to these media, social networking sites can have social benefits for teenagers” (Raising Children Network). One of the social benefits I used in my life is the ability to communicate with my children while I was deployed. Social media has also kept me in contact with my family that lives in the Netherlands. Multimedia can also help children with learning disabilities. One such project conducted with children with Autism or Down ’s Syndrome showed the learning benefits in multimedia systems (Khan).

Where is the balance in the negative and positive aspects of technology and children? As the availability of technology expands, families and educators need to address these issues before they become societal problems. With a safe and balanced approach to technology, society can harness technology’s awesome potential while protecting ourselves and our loved ones from its potentially devastating ill effects. As a society, we generally don’t allow children to drive a car until they are old enough to be responsible and able to follow the rules designed to keep them safe on the road. But even a young child can, with a few small clicks, unintentionally steer a computer or a smartphone app onto an inappropriate website. They can also steer themselves into distractions (LDS.org).

Along with safety, boundaries need to be set such as limiting children’s time spent using technology. No filter software or hardware is foolproof in setting boundaries. In the Digital Nation show, students online activities are were monitored and some children were still able to get around blocking software. There is no substitute for parental and educator supervision:

It takes careful monitoring to make sure we’re not allowing our technology use to numb our minds and consume much of the precious time. . . An important element of parenting in the digital age is helping children establish firm limits for digital use. Children also need guidance in learning to wisely balance digital activities with reading, outdoor activities, physical exercise, creative play, service, work, and time with family. (LDS.org)

Along with teaching balance, parents and educators need to teach children critical thinking and how to spot fallacies on the net.  They need to learn not to take anything at face value.  Brent Vasicek demonstrated this concept for his fifth grade class by using the following tactics: 

•I ask the students, "What would you do if a substance that caused thousands of deaths each year was found in your neighborhood?" I pause as they debate their favorite solutions to the problem.

•"What if it was found in your home?" I pause again as the emotions are cranked up a notch.

•I then ask them to go to this Web site that discusses banning dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) (aka water). I read some of it to them. I let them read and share facts with each other. The facts are true, but they don't realize that this one-sided story is manipulating them.

 •"What if I told you this substance was found in our school today?"

•I then send them to this more professional looking DHMO Web site to gain credibility.

•"What if I told you that our principal purposely has this substance pumped into our classroom?"

 •We visit one last DHMO Web site.

 •I pop open a water bottle and drink it. I lick my lips and say, "Ahhhh, this is good stuff. Why would you ever want to ban it?"

•We discuss how we were fooled into banning water (facts, data, professional looking Web sites, multiple sources).  We discuss phrases like "two sides to every story." We discuss the importance of using our brains. And the dangers of the Internet.

Brent further reinforced this concept to see if the student really understood by having a second and third lesson to follow up.

Technology has changed the way society educates and the way it communicates. Technology use has changed from the thing one does to the way one lives. Unfortunately, current studies on the effects on society cannot keep up with the digital revolution (Frontline, Digital Nation). More studies are needed to keep multimedia as an effective tool rather than a destructive one. The American society may face the same fallout as Korea.

Work Cited

"Benefits of media for children and teenagers." Raising children network. 2006. Web. 5 Aug 2014. <http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/media_benefits.html>.

Frontline, "Digital Nation-Life on the Virtual Frontier." PBS.org. PBS, 2 Feb 2010. Web. 8 Aug 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/etc/script.html>.

Khan, Tariq M. "The effects of multimedia learning on children with different special educational needs." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2.2 (2010): 4341–4345. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810007305>.

Lewin, Tamar. "If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online." The New York Times 20 Jan. 2010Nytimes Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html?scp=3&sq=tv%20obesity&st=cse>.

"Childhood Overweight and Obesity." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, Web. 7 Aug 2014. <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html>.

Pinborough, Jan. "Keeping Safe and Balanced in a Google-YouTube-Twitter-Facebook-iEverything World." LDS.org. LDS, Web. 10 Aug 2014. <http://overcomingpornography.org/individuals/keeping-safe-and-balanced-in-a-google-youtube-twitter-facebook-ieverything-world?lang=eng>.

Purcell Ph.D., Kristen , Lee Rainie, Alan Heaps, Judy Buchanan, Linda Friedrich, Amanda Jacklin, Clara Chen and Kathryn Zickuhr. "How Teens Do Research in the Digital World." PewResearch Internet Project. (2012): 1-7. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/>.

Reuters. "South Korean online gamer accused of murdering infant son to keep playing." MSN News 15 Apr. 2014MSN News. Web 4 Aug. 2014. <http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/south-korean-online-gamer-accused-of-murdering-infant-son-to-keep-playing>.

Rideout, M.A., Victoria J., Ulla G. Foehr, Ph.D. and Donald F. Roberts, Ph.D.. "Generation M2." Media in the Live of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. (a Kaiser Family Foundation study) (2010): 1-85. Print

Richtel, Matt. "Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction." The New York Times [New York City] 21 Nov. 2010Nytimes. Web. 4 Aug. 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&>.

Vasicek , Brent. "Danger on the Internet: A Lesson in Critical Thinking." Scholastic.com. Scholastic, Web. 10 Aug 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/classroom_solutions/2011/02/danger-on-the-internet-a-lesson-in-critical-thinking>.

Literature Review

James Flanders

Professor Goff

English 1010

28 July 2014

Parents and Technology

More and more each year, technology plays a bigger role at home. The topic of technology can be confusing and many parents lack knowledge on how to confront the challenges of the digital world. When technology arises in discussion among educators, parents, and children, the conversation often turns to an issue of parental views, parent’s perspectives, parental responsibility, and technology use at home.

Davies explores how children respond to parental attitudes about the use of technology in the home for learning. Some of the parental concerns are safety, accuracy and quality of information found in the internet. The question that is asked is whether parental attitude towards technology use limits the extent to which their children develop autonomous uses of technology for learning, especially as children grow older. Subsequently, parent’s involvement in children’s learning and use of technology decreases. The findings in this paper emerge from research carried out between 2008 and 2010 in association with a larger research project the United Kingdom led. Two hundred and sixty two youth with ages ranging from 8 to 17 took part in data gathering and interviews. The youth were asked how technology played a role in their lives and education. Additionally, they were asked about their parents interactions with their technology use. The research indicated the interactions between a parent and child can move in many directions in regards to home technologies. Davies concludes that we need to consider the long term effects of negative attitudes which are just as important as risks of unquestionably positive attitudes.

Plowman, McPake, and Stephen discuss parental feelings on technology use and its perception as threat to children. These can be broken down in three vast categories of social cultural, cognitive, and well-being. The categories which are the backbone of the study indicate parental fears are not as prevalent as media coverage leads people to believe. The study involved 346 families and 24 case studies over an eighteen-month period with children between the age of three and four. In these studies there were no attitude differences between those who were middle class and those were disadvantaged. Most were uncertain about the effect of technology on children’s health and development. The biggest concern was achieving balance in their child’s activities.

This chapter by Anne Collier also deals with parental perspectives on the digital age. Many parents lack knowledge on how to confront the challenges of the digital world. This lack of knowledge creates fear and encourages the feeling of helplessness. As a result parents can turn a blind an eye to youth’s involvement in the digital world. Additionally, the author describes how parents are receiving negative messages instead of the positive potentials that can engage children. She also describes how positive research is drowned out by the media. Coupled with parental fears about external influences on their children, these factors can be attributed to a lack of exposure to the digital age. Many parents feel this generation is different from other generations that have come before. Collier quotes Davis Fockner, saying that “The generation gap is more perception than reality” (251).

Hollingworth also looked at a generational divide. He used the work of Pierre Bourdieu to compare parental views on technology and their children learning in the home according to social class through three themes. The first theme discusses a digital divide between certain families. For most families, technology was omnipresent. The second theme describes navigating the harms and risks of technology. The research indicated many parents discussed technology through lenses of negativity. The research also affirms there is no difference in social class when it comes to looking at technology as a danger vice a learning tool. There is a viewpoint that parents who have internet access tend to speak more positively about it while those who don’t have access stress over finding their children access to internet. The last theme described a generational divide where it was evident through discussion with parents that generation gaps were connected to negative impacts of technology. This can be contributed to the parent’s lack of exposure to technology as children because it did not exist. Further, lower income families tend to feel the generation gap is unbridgeable. In spite of parental concerns, many parents see a technology as tool in education.

Many countries such as the United Kingdom already have policies in place for the use of technology in education. Plowman, Stevenson, McPake, Stephen, and Adey mention policies that are in place that focus on children over the age of eight to get access to technology at home. The paper attempts to identify the implications for similar polices for preschool children discussed through three studies involving 54 families. The authors reviewed a series of studies that encompassed different types of technologies children encounter at home, what forms their learning takes and the family support for learning. The first study focused on the impact of technology and children before formal education. The second study’s focus was narrowed to the competencies needed with the use of technologies. These two studies indicated children had a plethora of experiences with technology. The final study had a wide focus that included children’s interactions with technological toys. The research indicates that family ownership of technology is not the most important factor of technology use by preschoolers. Factors depend on parental attitudes, educational goals for their children, and amount of supervision.

Stevenson expounds on factors of technology use in the home through a case study of eight families. He examined parents buying technology for educational potentials. When, in fact, it is only one of many social dimensions that are mixed in with those potentials. Those social dimensions complicate the issue of using technology for education. The study demonstrates a need for focus on how technology is actually used, not based on what could or should happen in the home. Parents described that family life and work life have blurred with the introduction of the internet. Not only that, home and school life is also blurred. It is always thought that computers appeal to young children regardless of what there used for, but this is not always the case. Regardless of what computers are used for, most families established rules on how they are used, for instance time rules. Such rules are subject to family values. These rules are used to regulate the relationship of family members and technology. Parents even use technology to enforce those rules.

One of the most common technology tools available to help parents enforce rules is the “V-Chip.” Fahlquist and Van De Poel discuss technology and parental responsibility specifically with the V-chip. The V-chip is a tool parents can use to control what their children are watching on television which has been used since 1997. There is also a discussion of this technology tool and others such as content-controlled software to block material on the internet with respect to parental responsibilities. Unlike content-controlled software, the V-Chip relies on a rating committee. It further discusses the delegation of parental responsibility in regards to the V-chip. Does the V-chip reduce responsibilities for children or it is a tool to exercise that responsibility? The authors argue that there are three notions of responsibilities underlying those questions, and they should be kept separate. The first notion is how responsibility distributed between humans could be delegated to technology. Specifically, does the V-Chip redistribute responsibility? Second, responsibility can be referred to as control. In regards to parents, they have more control over what their children watch. Finally, there is a reference to a deeper concept of responsibility called virtue. This involves the very core of what it means to be a parent.

Many parents believe technology is a valuable tool for education. They struggle finding balance in using it within family. They are concerned how technology affects the physical and mental development of their children. Safety appears to be a great concern as well. Many parents did not grow up with this type of technology and had a different lifestyle. This is the first generation where technology is widely available. Continual study is needed as technology use grows in the home. Parental views, parent’s perspectives, parental responsibility will change with this growth and next generation.

Work Cited

Davies, C. "Digitally Strategic: How Young People Respond To Parental Views About The Use Of Technology For Learning In The Home." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27.4 (2011): 324-335. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 June 2014.

Fahlquist, J., and I. van de Poel. "Technology And Parental Responsibility: The Case Of The VChip." Science & Engineering Ethics 18.2 (2012): 285-300. Academic Search Premier.

Web. 27 June 2014.

Hollingworth, S., et al. "Parents' Perspectives On Technology And Children's Learning In The Home: Social Class And The Role Of The Habitus." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27.4 (2011): 347-360. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 June 2014.

Jordan, Amy, and Romer Daniel. “Perspectives on Parenting in a Digital Age.” Media and the Well-Being of Children and Adolescents. Oxford University Press, 2014. 247-251 Web. 27 June 2014.

Plowman, L., et al. "Parents, Pre-Schoolers And Learning With Technology At Home: Some Implications For Policy." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27.4 (2011): 361-371. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 June 2014.

Plowman, Lydia, Joanna McPake, and Christine Stephen. "The Technologisation Of Childhood? Young Children And Technology In The Home." Children & Society 24.1 (2010): 63-74. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 June 2014.

Stevenson, O. "From Public Policy To Family Practices: Researching The Everyday Realities Of Families' Technology Use At Home." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27.4 (2011): 336-346. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 June 2014.

Why I love dogs

I think there are two categories of people when it comes to animals. Those who like them and those who do not. I have always been fond of animals, dogs especially. I was fortunate last year to work with someone who had Boxers that were brought to work. The building we worked in was an old veterinarian center and had a caged area in the back. I used to call the Boxers my therapy dogs as I worked in a high stress environment. Playing with the dogs and petting them took the edge off. It was also nice to have the dogs around because there was a lot of bears in the area.

My wife noticed years ago when I went to boot camp I did not cry leaving her. I also did not cry when we reunited after boot camp. However, when she told me my dog Jake passed away while in boot camp, I had to excuse myself. 

Jake was a Golden Retriever and I loved that dog. I'm not sure why my dad named her Jake. She seemed to know when you were sad or sick, a man's best friend. I'm waiting to be done with my education and to be settled before getting another dog. It will be hard to replace Jake.

Christmas then and now.

When I grew up, Christmas seemed simple. Maybe it was because I lived in a rural area without the influence of  big cities. It also seemed stores held back from Christmas displays until after Thanksgiving. We put our Christmas tree up after Thanksgiving. I carry on that tradition in my own family.

I grew up poor and the my best presents were the home made presents from my sister. She used to make me story books and one time she made me an airport from a shoe box and paper towel rolls. I was always amazed how early my parents let my siblings an I get up Christmas morning. Typically, it was around 4 a.m. Thankfully my own kids let me sleep in.

We always had a simple Christmas tree but never decorated the outside of the house. Now Christmas seems to be all about hyper-competitiveness. Now houses are decorated so bright with so many things they look tacky. Shoppers are literally killing each other over buying presents. Let's all dial it back a notch this Christmas. Christmas can be simple and meaningful.

My first car

My first car was a 1986 Mercury Link which is the same as a Ford Escort. I bought it for $250 and drove it off the lot with no plates. I stopped by my friend's house and her dad made me leave the car there. Over the next couple of weeks I worked on fixing the car since it needed a little body work and a taillight. I actually found the same colored car in the junkyard and my friend helped me pick up the parts. Her brother actually spray painted the whole car and it actually looked decent from 25 feet away.

I actually drove the car a few times from Massachusetts to Florida. The last time I drove it down to Florida the tires were worn down to the steel belts and the front end was shaking. It finally died on the day I went to trade it in. The steering broke and I sold it to a garage across the street for $100 or so.

I went back to the garage where I sold the car a few days later to pick up my personal affects I left in it. Unfortunately, one of the mechanics took the car out while he was drunk after he fixed it. He subsequently wrapped the car around a tree and I was told there was only pieces left. I was unable to retrieve my grandfather's tools I left in the car. I have owned dozen of cars since then but my old Mercury will still be my favorite.

Deployed to School

My family thinks I'm "deployed" to school during this summer semester since I'm gone so much. The second block of the semester has been the hardest because I'm taking 9 credits. I actually had to take time off from work to catch up on my various assignments. I also needed to take care of various things around the house. I take care of my own lawn and vehicle maintenance to save money.

The first 3 days of the week I'm in school from 8 am to around 8 pm. Thursday mornings I'm at work and I go straight to the math lab after. Typically on Fridays I spend the entire day at the Veterans Upward Bound Center. Unfortunately, the last couple of Saturdays I have been studying at my sister's house.

My family is having a hard time with me being gone so much. My oldest daughter was crying the other weekend. She was sad I was leaving to study again. I tried to explain to her I was studying so hard so I could get a better job. She was still sad because she thinks my next job would take me away a lot. I can only hope the sacrifice I'm making now will pay off in the future.