Wikipedia vs. Textbooks

The point to this post is to prove to readers why Wikipedia is not as bad as they believe it to be... We all have heard the rumor that anybody can change anything on Wikipedia but that is actually not true. I used to think Wikipedia was an unreliable source too, until exploring all I did below: 

In the Wikipedia common craft video: Three important ideas/things from the video are, all Wikipedia material has to be presented fairly and is completely unbiased, there’s not a limit to the number of topics it can cover, and the most important thing from the video is the goal of Wikipedia is to provide everyone one the planet with knowledge

In a U.S History Textbook the Wounded Knee Massacre is presented simple, makes it sound stupid and simplifies it. The textbook gives no actual definition to the Wounded Knee Massacre and said it was in Arizona on December 28th which is false. 

In the Wikipedia article Wounded Knee Massacre  it said it was in Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Wikipedia gives Prelude, eyewitness accounts, aftermath, and much more. Gives amount of men, women, and children killed/ wounded. The website talks about the 2001 National Congress of American Indians and is up to date unlike the textbook.

• When exploring the Wikipedia website I went to “Scope” where it welcomes indigenous people of all races to the page and thanks them for their help in “improving the diversity of Wikipedia coverage.” Under “Progress update on our articles” it says there are 16,900 pages in the project of Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America. It is up to date as of today.
• The “talk” tab on Wikipedia takes you behind the scenes where people are giving sources and information about the topic. As I read through I saw stuff highlighted and crossed out by the people in charge of the page. They crossed out and deleted the sources and people that were not reliable.  
• Scroll all the way down and you will find the "Medals of Honor" tab. A Medal of Honor is the highest award you can get in the army. Native American activists have urged that the people who got medals during Wounded Knee Massacre get their medals taken away. 20 people were awarded medals for the “short and one sided battle.” "According to Lakota tribesman William Thunder Hawk, 'The Medal of Honor is meant to reward soldiers who act heroically. But at Wounded Knee, they didn't show heroism; they showed cruelty.'" This information is very in depth and very informing, it is also cited to the Website where it was found! 
• The users who created the Wounded Knee Massacre page are Sdgjake, Piratedan, and V8m8i. Sdgjake is from South Dakota and edits mostly South Dakota related articles. He majored in Computer Science then got bachelor of science. Piratedan has a bachelor of arts in history, and a master of arts in European history. V8m8i  is a military historian colonel in US Army. All of these users that created the pageare very well educated and have the qualifications to be writing about the Wounded Knee Massacre and editing it. I trust their answers and facts because of the sources and their qualifications and experience.
• The “talk” buttons beside of the three users shows the behind the scene action and comments between the user and people wanting to add information to the page. All three users were very polite and had appropriate replies to all the people. They gave specific reasoning to why the source wouldn’t be used in the articles and how to fix that. They reply to every person who contacts them and are very good with forming their replies.
• The page on the Wounded Knee Massacre really does not have any obvious bias. "Edward S. Godfrey; Captain; commanded Co. D of the Seventh Cavalry:
• "I know the men did not aim deliberately and they were greatly excited. I don't believe they saw their sights. They fired rapidly but it seemed to me only a few seconds till there was not a living thing before us; warriors, squaws, children, ponies, and dogs ... went down before that unaimed fire."[28] (Godfrey was a Lieutenant in Captain Benteen's force during the Battle of the Little Bighorn)[29]" This is an eyewitness quote, I like this one because he was understanding and polite of the shooters despite all of the circumstances. He offers alternate points of view and is not biassed. If this quote in the article would have said, "The man meant to aim and killed everything on purpose, I hate him." Then, that would of been biassed opinion on the Wounded Knee Massacre Page, but overall the page was not biassed and it took a look from both sides of the Massacre. 

In the article Wikipedia As Trusted Source for Ebola these three quotes prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.

1. “The 300 or so core editors of Wikipedia’s medical articles tend to be highly educated, Dr. Heilman said. A recent survey, he said, found that half of that core group work as, or are studying to be, health care providers and 85 percent have completed college.”
2. “The initial skepticism about Wikipedia was mainly structural: how could you trust an article in an “encyclopedia that anyone can edit?” The growing confidence in the site — certainly when it comes to public health articles — in part reflects the fact that much of Wikipedia is not edited by just “anyone.””
3. “Many impediments exist to someone casually editing the Ebola article. Only registered Wikipedia editors with at least some experience are permitted to edit the page, and the requirement for sourcing is much more rigorous than for other Wikipedia entries. Newspaper articles, for example, do not cut it.”

 

I believe Wikipedia is a way more trustable source than any textbook created by a publisher. Students need to learn and textbooks obviously aren't the best way for that to happen. According to A Textbook Example of What's Wrong with Education in fact there's not an actual author of these textbooks, textbooks don't even follow state guidelines, and finally, "Every adoption state allows private citizens to review textbooks and raise objections. Publishers must respond to these objections at open hearings." That means that pretty much anyone can request for something to be in the textbooks. Textbook companies and publishers do everything they can to make money, they don't truly care about what is in them or what students are learning. Textbooks in some classrooms are the only way students learn and their only source of information. Teachers shouldn't be teaching with solely textbooks since they aren't a good source. In the article No Books, No Problem: Teaching Without a Text  teaching has no need for books, if a child is truly learning they're probably not using books. The author, Geoff Ruth says, "While some textbooks are excellent, most bore my students and frustrate me... Without a textbook, I can create curriculum that engages students by relating science to their everyday lives." Although, Ruth does recommend that first year teachers don't decide to ditch the textbook until the get use to the criteria and to teaching. Teaching without a textbook is possible and although it is probably tough to find other tools to teach with it is best for the students. Wikipedia for a trusted source of Ebola proves that Wikipedia is in fact a very informative and helpful sites that covers all topics. In the article doctors and other well educated people discuss how reliable and well informed WIkipedia is about Ebola and other medical aspects. Educated peoples and doctors are the ones that run the web pages on Wikipedia and the requiring of sources does not even allow newspaper articles, there are very strict guidelines they have to follow on Wikipedia. So, in my opinion teachers should slowly start teaching without a textbook and teaching through other fun and creative technological sources. 

Amplifying Human Potential

Computers, along with all other technology, have completely revolutionized the way people learn. A computer allows students to be creative and have fun learning while providing them with the skills they will need for their entire lives.

All technology allows students to be creative but computers give people the opportunity to do just about anything. Websites like Picasso Pic Art allows students to express themselves through art and come up with things they probably never would’ve without a little help. Even things like online video games can help a child become more creative. Students can now beat levels and achieve their goals on video games while they’re learning. It’s even possible for a kid to build his or her own video game now, which takes an extreme amount of creativity. Not only are there many websites that bring out a student’s creativity, but anything is better then sitting at a desk writing things down while a teacher is lecturing. Computers give students a break throughout the day and are actually something they want to use. The opportunities on computers are endless.

Thankfully, there are some great websites that provoke learning through fun games. No matter what the subject, there is a website or game out there that makes a student use their brains and think without students even knowing. Whether it’s an online game that makes you answer a math question to level up, or a video lecturing students on a certain subject. It’s the 21st century, student’s love learning in any way other than textbooks and lecturing. The computer gives that opportunity, to learn while having fun and a child will definitely learn better if they are engaged and active in something they truly enjoy.

When children today become adults they will have different lives than previous children. When children now become adults they will have different jobs, some we may have never even heard of, like a web developer or a computer network architect. Computers and technology are what they will need for their whole lives and careers. All children will need to know how to use technology efficiently, so it’s important they use this technology when they’re young. Computers are something students will need, throughout their lives, and it’s the teacher’s job to teach them computer skills at an early age. This will ensure a successful future in whatever high tech job they may pursue.

Computers have completely changed the world and amplified human potential in every way, shape, and form. People don’t realize how important computers are because, even a few years ago, they weren’t as vital as they are today. Computers are children’s future, a fun and creative way to learn, that teaches skills a child will need for their entire life. It is up to teachers to incorporate the efficient and intellectual machine into the classroom to help students eventually pursue what they want to.

Learning Styles Don't Exist

Professional's Views

Professor Willingham stated in the video Learning Styles Don't Exist that,"90% of people believe there's learning styles," because there's not been a lot of research on it, people just believe that there are learning styles and that everyone learns differently. Learning styles are the way you think about something and learn it. Anybody can learn in any of the 3 ways, auditory, visually, or kinesthetic. Some people do have a better memory visually then others, but that doesn't mean teachers should only teach in that learning style. Teachers ultimately want students to learn based on meaning. The prediction is that people with a good visual memory will always learn better visually is not true because some things you have to visually see when learning them like the shape of a state, you can't auditory learn what the shape of a state looks like. Basically, teachers don't need to adjust their teaching to an individuals learning style. 

Howard Gardner of the Multiple Intelligence Theory said that multiple intelligence was made to document the different strengths human beings have. Teaching in one certain way isn't fair because one child may be learning while the rest don't learn like that and are confused. We teach way to many subjects and material. Gardner thinks schools needs to change into few priorities instead of students having knowledge "a mile long but only an inch deep."  A change in education is what we need he says; people have to see examples where new kinds of education actually works and have enough good examples. Teachers have to believe in it and really want to educate where children are at the center of learning. Show everyone that this style of learning is working. Political commitment that this is the new education.

My Views

Overall, my views on Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligence Theory is that even though some students do learn differently, teachers cannot always teach a student separately or teach the same material in all 3 different styles to fit every single student. We teachers have to learn how to add all learning styles into one to better our students. The style I prefer learning in is hands-on. I like to see objects, hold them, and feel them. This is the way I learn and memorize material best but I can also learn in other styles, I just prefer more of a hands-on style. Does this mean when I become a teacher I'll only teach in this style? Of course not. When doing activities with students all you simply have to do is combine all three methods. For example, if you're learning about rocks and minerals you can tell them about it (auditory), then show a short clip on minerals (visual), then pass around actual rocks and minerals for them to feel (kinesthetic). Technology also can help a student learn in their preferred style. There's different apps, features, and websites that allow a student to explore and discover how they learn best. Whether it's through pictures, or sounds on a computer, or virtual field trips, and microscopes, you can do just about anything through technology. Ultimately though,  "the best ways to reach students will always come down to a teacher's experienced intuition combined with her knowledge of each student."

Our Brains on Video Games

My thoughts on video games before research:

I believe video games have no direct correlation with making a person smarter or not. I do think video games take some skills and teach children things like reaction time and hand and eye coordination and goal setting. After sitting in front of a TV or computer screen for a while the video games could harm a child and cause inappropriate thoughts, for example wanting to shoot someone or developing anger problems. So, video games are good for children to a certain extent but after sitting inside in front of a screen for a certain amount of time a child needs to put the video games down and do something a little more productive.

  

My thoughts on video games after research: 

After watching a video about gaming I learned that video games improve academic achievements and raise IQ's. Games are engaging and motivating. Gaming gives children positive reinforcement when they make it to the next level, win, or do good. Instead of being opposed to games we should get into the games with our kids and stop fighting the game trend. My thoughts previously about games bringing violence into children's life and it teaching them bad things has changed a little bit. Violent games do not make kids violent; if they are exposed to violence in their lives then play violent games it may bring the violence out inside of them. Although, in general violent games will not make a child violent or want to go out and kill people.



Overall, I believe that video games do not directly make an individual smarter. I do think video games have some good qualities and can better an individual but I do not necessarily think schools should teach students through video games. Video games in classrooms on occasion are a great thing and students would definitely love it but not teaching only through video games. I believe this because video games can be distracting and can cause kids to become glued to a tv/ computer screen. From personal experience I know that games are distracting and when you're in the middle of a game there's not much else you want to do other than keep playing it. A problem with video games in the 21st century is that children are choosing to stay inside playing games instead of wanting to go outside and play. The more people play video games the less they might want to have a real life and the more they'll want to stay in front of the screen.