Integrating Tech into an Art classroom

   So far the things of note in class that we have gone over in class are the SAMR model and the
TPACK model. The SAMR model is the representation of the levels of integration. Those being substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. Substitution is the idea of one to one replacement, while augmentation is the replacement of traditional learning tools with improvements. An example would be something like word with spell check. Modification is the idea of the tech redesigning the task at hand. Using power point to create powerful visual aids to add to presentations would be a example of this. Redefinition is technology creating entirely new methods of teaching that could not be possible without the tech. Using I-Movie to create trailers or short movies as a presentation would be an example of this. Now the TPACK framework, as shown the image below, is the idea of the blending of all of our knowledge's as a teacher, content, pedagogical, and technological. Where you can blend two of them and reach this better state of teaching but there is this sweet spot where all three knowledge's meet and that is where a good modern teacher should strive for.

  Now the art class room as a whole has always been a entirely different beast compared to other classrooms. So it's no surprise that integrating tech into an art classroom is more difficult for us than the average classroom. Now if I taught art history that would be a different story and it would be a little easier to work some in. Though it's not easy that doesn't mean it's impossible. It hadn't crossed my mind until we were creating those online quiz's, but I can use those to give students safety and procedure quiz's. Several of the processes for some mediums use poisonous or in the very least toxic chemicals or sharp tools. So as a teacher I have to be sure that students are capable of handling these materials safely. Using theses online quiz's is a quick way to check their knowledge and I can include helpful imagery to help recognition. This would be an example of augmentation or possibly modification.  Now a big thing that I think technology can offer my classroom is programs like Photoshop. It's uses are limitless in the art setting. It is honestly an art form all on it's self. Now the way that I use it and would want my students to use is to create these machetes of collage imagery to help them visualize their work. An example of this would be a print I was working on, it was going to be a knight riding a skateboard. I was having trouble visualizing it so I made this to help me in Photoshop.

This is a prime example of redefinition. This is something that would be nearly impossible in a classroom without access to the internet and Photoshop or programs like it. Ultimately there are not a lot of ways to work in technology into art since everything is a hands on project based learning, but these are some ways to include them. 

http://theeditorsblog.net/2010/09/17/male-writers-female-writers-theres-a-difference-in-the-writing/

Current Connection: Writer's Block by Gender?

     Males and Females, two separate genders but is that all that separates us? We're all human so shouldn't we be pretty much the same on all fields regardless of our genders, especially in writing? In a article by Mike Duran, a writer himself, on his personal blog entitled "The Differences Between Male & Female Writers", addresses the possible subtle differences between male and females in the field of writing. Within the article Duran expresses his observations he has made through out his career as a writer on his, his colleges, and many other's writings and the differences in how the pattern on how men and women of this group seem to critique theirs and other's books differently.

     Duran starts off in talking about how his writing group consists of himself and three other women and he goes on to state "The girls almost always key on a character’s motivation and reaction. I almost always key on the visceral and atmospheric elements." Though this is not a large consensus of people to really draw much data from, can it not be said that women are more focused on the emotional aspects of things while men have been depicted to focus on the action of things of their surroundings. These traits of men and women can very well be also applied to their critiquing and what they look for in other books along with their very own writing styles.

    Duran, who he himself had found his own critiques to be centered around the visceral workings of the story, posed the question "Are men more genetically inclined toward the visceral, more fast-paced, less interior types of tales?" Men have always seemed to be more drawn to things that represent a violent, constant fast paced, and slightly lacking on an emotional level on a consensus of things ranging from their actual life, their shows, and if they do happen to read, their books as well. The difference in gender represents different interests and wants, though the differences can range to small and subtle to wide and vast, can lead to the difference in authors by the distinction of sex. But of course there are always exceptions to this case, not all men are like this and vise verse with women in relation to their more in depth understanding of emotions and desire for them.

    Duran goes on to explain "It’s made me wonder if the differences between men and women writers aren’t very, very real. In fact, learning to write like the opposite gender may be less about developing technique than wrestling against biology." Here he has come to the conclusion that it's not gender that dictates the way we write and what we look for in books but the technique we have learned in our styles and our point of view, which these can range to hundreds of different ways and styles. But not entirely dismissing the whole gender difference, it can be said that our gender and the preferences that come with it can greatly effect our desires and wants out of things such as literature. Which in turn can effect the very technique we use to achieve the desired effect and feel of the story.

     Personally I can very well understand Duran's point of view. I myself have been trying my hand as a writer and have been quite successful at it, though I've not had anything published or even completed yet. I too seem to lend more of my time writing to the surroundings and the depth of the are and mood of the atmosphere rather than pushing more into the realm of the character himself. Which in my experience can lead to a story with plenty of realism, as if you can feel the breeze and the atmosphere of the room, but has a somewhat underdeveloped character and is lacking in the human element. I consider myself to be slightly more emotional than most guys but I don't have much understanding of them, which is probably why I'm confused so much, which is probably more focused on the visceral part of the stories. But it's not like it's something I can't change, all is needed is a change in perspective and working on a slightly different technique as Duran had come to this same conclusion.

     In summation, is it really gender that builds the gap between male and female writers? Or is it really just our own personal technique and preference that cause the differences? Truthfully, Duran and I believe it is the latter of the two, though it can be said that gender and the preferences that follow them can influence our technique as to which it can give the appearance that it's gender that has built the gap between writers.

Current Connection: Turning a Page to a New World

     In a recent artical by Curiosty on their site entitled "Gender Gap", they address the question of "Why do women read more fiction than men?" Through out this artical they touch on the points that women read more than more than men and bilogical reasons for why that is and a study conducted by an author.

     Within the artical they address a studdy conducted by the Associated Press stateing "women read nine books a year while men read five," and even went on to say "booksellers say that women make up the clear majority of fiction readers." Considering women read at least fore more books a year than men it's no surprise that they consist of the "majority" when it comes to fiction readers. But shortly after this statement they did go on to say that men "outpaced the women in reading biographies and historical books," so maybe men are not compleatly iliterete compared to men but just different tastes.

     The artical goes on to explain one theroy backing this stating that "women read more fiction than men because they possess greater quantities of mirror neurons." Mirror neurons are signaled when we are in the process of doing something or watching someone do the same thing, basicly they allow us to put ourselfs in others shoes and is pretty much the cause of empathy in our brains. Since women have more mirror neurons it can be considered possible that they are more capable to empathize with fictional characters, which can make them more engulfed in the story and the characters.

     Lastly they address British author Ian McEwen and his own study "by handing out 30 free copies of one of his novels in a London park. Nearly all who took advantage of the free books were women. McEwen said, "When women stop reading, the novel will be dead"" Though this is not a fairly scientific study or even one with a wide baseus of test subjects, it acttuly reflects to be fairly accurate. Women do take the bulk of all readers in the fictional novel market, so if women were to stop reading it would be a heavy blow that portion of the market.

     Personaly I love reading, but looking amoung my fellow male peers, this is not quite the case. Most of them only read because they have to, and sometimes not even then. Very few of them actully just read out of the desire to and for enjoyment. But all of my freinds that happen to be women, love reading, and ofteen it's them that i talk to about books. So it stands to reason that women read more than men.

     In conclusion, in regards to the artical by curiosty and my own personal experince, their are a multiude of reason why but the simple fact is, women read more than men

Just Keep Swimming your own way

  Acceptance for whom one really is is a hard to come by as of lately, especially amongst the student population. In a resent article on yahoo by Beth Greenfield entitled "Gay College Swimmer Comes Out to Teammates in Email" reports on the touching story on how a young college swimmer steps out of the closet to his team in a heart touching email. And to his surprise it went better than he expected.

   Matt Korman, a member of the University of Texas's swim team, wrote and sent out an email to all of his fellow team mates. Within this letter Korman goes on to explain how he is gay and is coming out of the closet, "When I was younger I thought I was only curious or it was just a phase for me, but have come to terms that I'm actually gay. (There, I finally said it)". And much to his surprise he received a much better reaction than he expected. His team were completely unfazed by it and went on to say things like "We're totally fine, you're still my friend and my teammate and good for you." Which their reaction greatly boosted Korman's confidence in himself.
     Korman goes on to say "For a long time I tried to be someone that I am not. By opening up and talking about it I have learned that this is normal and it's okay to be who I am. I have accepted myself for who I am. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not something that I choose. It just is." In many schools across America and quite frankly everywhere else, acceptance is a hard thing to come by. People have to act so fake just to try and blend in and not be noticed by the big crowd so as not to be made fun of. They pretend there something there not all for the sake of not being mocked for it. Even if they are surrounded by more understanding people it's still difficult to be one's self due to social restraints holding everyone back.
     I believe that all of this can be stopped if every one can just learn to accept each other and not judge each other like Korman's friends. Acceptance should not be a hard thing to receive from everyone but we have made it that way. Everyone just needs to love everybody.

 

Current Connection 1: Rips in the fabric of society

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/looters-target-coney-island-sandy-article-1.1195080

   Society, a false sense of control and order implemented upon us by ourselfs to fight our very nature of self preservation and deepest desires. It is an ever present shroud that encompasses us and masks our darker inhibitions, but what would happen if there was a tear in this shroud of lies and misconceptions. Some would say that would never happen but in times of great distress, unease, and disaster the fabric of society stretches taut, showing a ghost of what lies underneath. Then all it takes is that last push, the last ounce of pressure on the scales to send us hurdling over the edge and into the dark truth of humanity. The truth that we will do what ever it takes in the cause of self preservation and to satisfy our own needs.

   Such incidents like these have occurred through out history in wars, events of mass chaos, and most recently, natural disasters. Like after hurricane Sandy swept through the east coast and left devastation in it's wake. Shortly after the storm cleared a second wave struck New York, but this time it was a "wave of looters". With no control in place and the place in utter chaos, people had no fear of society and it's consequences, or in a different light without it's protection, these people did what is only natural and that is to do what it is necessary for there preservation. Stealing food and other necessities  so that don't go hungry or so that they can stay warm, even though some of these very same people in different circumstances would have said that stealing was wrong or immoral  but when it comes down to it, human nature is to do what needs to be done. Morals are simply templates of society used to set an example of what it believes to be right and to distinguish what it stands against.

   Though necessitous weren't all that were stolen. Like the old saying says "Give a starving man a fortune and he will buy food, but once he is full he will learn there is more to spend gold on than just food". Once they had what they needed people's own personal wants began to take hold. They began to steal "anything that wasn't nailed down, such as "T.V's, liquor, and even a cash register." Some even claimed that "They looked like they were casually shopping, they looked almost happy." These people enjoyed what they were doing, why someone might ask, because they were satisfying there desires that were denied to them by society, or simply came with a price which limited it to them. But with the shroud of control society briefly lifted these people gorged themselves on there wants and desires, take what they want as they please simply because they could. They didn't need those things, but they also didn't to need a reason to steal them with everything out of order they could simply do as they please, which is what all people want but we control ourselves using society as the tool to enforce it.

   So in short, were these acts justified or not, I don't believe they need justification. Because any person in the same position would have done the same thing, even if they don't want to admit it. And those who wouldn't are the kind of people who are so dependent on the control of society it's all they know. Not that it is a bad thing, if it weren't for society the world would be a much darker place. Society serves it's purpose but it is simply a tool that we use to oppress our darker natures. And some fear the thought that the day will come when the shroud is removed utterly and cast asunder and burned to ash, when temptation and the darkness of the human heart will run rampant, but me... I embrace that days coming, when one can simply be themselves without holding back, when ones true nature rules.

THE END

Don't point the barrel at video games

     In a recent article "Gun violence task force meets video game leaders as debate continues", Mariano Castillo explains the world wide debate on how to control guns and violent video games.  Due to the mass murder in Connecticut  the U.S. is in a tail spin looking for the right answer. What would this world be without guns? Remember that it is not the guns fault, but the person who uses that gun is to blame. But people are still seeking a scapegoat  to take the explains and that is where video games come into play. They are as much to blame as the gun itself, just another object to be used as we so fit. The reality of it all that everyone just chooses not to see is that people are just violent, some more so that others.
     Castillo says that Joe Biden, vice president of the country, met with the game leaders on Friday, and Biden says, " 'We know there is no single answer...". Exactly, many of the people who are so quick to put the blame on video games aren't even considering other things. They are just point to the first violent thing they see and blaming it for their kids or others bad behavior. He goes on to say " ... and, quite frankly, we don't even know whether some of the things people think impact on this (gun violence) actually impact on it or not." Because there is no conclusive data proving that videogames are linked to violent behavior. Which the lack of data is just more proof that they don't make people violent. Sure some violent people play video games, video games are fun and even psychopaths like to have fun from time to time. That doesn't mean the government should take away video games cause some violent people play them, they might as well take Sonic or Walmart away too, cause I'm pretty sure they shop or eat there too.
     Some states are not waiting for the government to step in, such as Massachusetts  Castillo states, "in Massachusetts, action has been taken against violent video games. Specifically, operators of four rest stops have removed -- at the state's request -- arcade games with guns or 'shooting components,' said Sara Lavoie, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts' Department of Transportation."  Sure taking these little arcade games aren't really that big of a deal but it's the principle of the matter. For one video games have nothing to do with violent behavior, and secondly they are just wasting time when they could be coming up with new and actually useful laws to stop gun violence. Massachusetts is not the only state working on weeding out violence. Castillo explains, "In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal -- like Dewhurst,  a Republican -- on Friday proposed legislation to join 17 other states and make mental health records part of the screening criteria for federal background checks to buy firearms." Now this is a step in the right direction. Guns and video games are not the bad guys, but the people who shoots the gun to intentionally hurt someone is and it should definitely be hard for him to purchase a weapon. 
     In my opinion, violent video games are not the big cause to all this mass destruction. The person who is behind the gun should be to take the  blame. People are just violent in nature, some more so than others and people just need to except that. And I do not the think the government should take away our guns either. Complete gun control or no video games is not the answer.  This nation cannot control gun violence, but our government can try to make it harder for the crazy people that would do this kind of stuff to get there hands on guns, if not impossible for them to.