1. What's the authors purpose? Expository/Informative
2. What is the authors main idea within this article? To inform the reader on the different types of technology in the twenty-first century that can improve education.
3. Provide evidence to support his/her main idea. Powerbag, SugarSync and how it eliminates the dog ate my homework concept children come up with.
4. With what ideas do you agree? Binder Insert Case, it would give students organization within their school work. SuperSync, it would eliminate excuses being made for unfinished assignments, such as the dog ate my homework trick. InstaEdu, it can improve childrens mental ability within the classroom and their grades as well which will help both in And out of the classroom.
5. With what ideas do you disagree? Powerbag, it would give students more of a reason to use their phones and other inappropriate and distracting technology during school, because the Powerbag gives them a place to charge the devices.
6. What connections can you make with the text? If more students use these technological advances then we will have a stronger and smarter society and a more efficient world. With the use of these developments students would get smarter thus creating a greater youth of our nations tomorrow.
7. How can I become a more active participant in my learning? By reading and learning of new ways to improve my thought process by using the latest technology to help me learn, or to stayed tuned in with current connections on what is happening in our society.
8. How can I take responsibility for my learning? By always doing what's asked of me as a student and always looking for new ways to improve my learning and the learning of those around me.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Reading Bucket List
- The Hunger Games- Suzanne Collins
- Shiver- Maggie Stiefvater
- Thirteen Reasons Why- Jay Asher
- Impulse- Ellen Hopkins
- Burned- Ellen Hopkins
- Messenger- Lois Lowry
- Gathering Blue- Lois Lowry
- Beautiful Creatures- Kami Garcia
- Lord of the Flies- William Golding
- This Lullaby- Sarah Dessen
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Rebels Without a Cause Review
It all began in 1955, when the enfamous film Rebels Without a Cause came to the scene grabbing attention from those of all ages. The film was made to present the shockingly critical teenage tragedy to the public, relating to the abscence of fathers in teens lives. Screenwriters Stewart Stern, Irving Shulman, along with director Nicholas Ray, create realisitc characters who are living their lives through the father, or man of the house being absent. Every character in this film is presented with a seriously realistic issue concerning absecence of parents or attention, causing life-long obstacles for the teens to attempt to overcome.
To start the film off Jim Stark, played by the extremely famous James Dean, is drunk in the middle of the street and is taking by police to the juvinele facility, where Jim realeases his depression and frustration of the lose of a father figure in his life. As a result of his mother in control, Jim encounters several troubling obstacles, and once trouble has arrived the Stark's are rooted up from their home and moved to a new place to start over. Throughout the movie Jim struggles to recieve the structured discipline he needs from his father, causing bad incidents to happen, thus his rebellion. In his new town, Jim runs into several bad infulences, but he finds one girl, Judy (Natalie Wood), who interests him. In this timeless encounter the two find themselves falling for each other, but keeping it secret was the key to save Judy's reputation. Judy was the popular girl in high-school, she had the best boyfriend, a tough guy named Buzz (Corey Allen), perfect friends, and all the things that come with being the most popular girl in school, and being that person she couldn't dare fall for some strange new kid. Just like Jim and every character in this film, Judy has issues with her father. In the film, Judy kisses her father on the cheeck and is scolded badly and being told that she's too old to be acting that way, demanding the attention from her father. Through Jim's crush for Judy, Buzz notices and presents some rough obstacles for Jim and ends up taking the fall for his actions.
On the first day at a new school, Plato (John Crawford) shows up giving Jim a friend, and a strange one at that. Plato like the other characters has a fatherly type issue, his father abandoned him, and now he needs that fatherly figure. Currently Plato is taken in by a black maid, who loves Plato and understands his situation.
As the film rolls on, problems arose between Jim and Buzz, and Buzz slashes Jim's car tires, and a knife fight begins outside the planetarium. From the knife fight a game of Chicken is announced to be happening between Jim and Buzz to see who the real "tough guy" is. Chicken is an immature game where stolen cars are driven off a cliff and the first person to bail out of the car is considered the "chicken". From this game, Buzz is blindsided by a trouble opening his door and drives himself off the cliff and dies. Reacting to his death, his girlfriend, Judy, takes herself and starts to turn her attention to Jim, like she's wanted to all along. Judy's attention to Jim, causes on thing to lead to another and thus they fall in love and all the tension between them has melted away. Then, Jim attempts to talk to his father, but his father shows him no support so Jim does the noble thing and goes to the police, where he is met up with Buzz's gang who chase him to prevent him from informing the police. Fearing Jim's saftey, Judy and Plato run to the abandoned mansion where it's safe and they can have fun. Once they arrive Plato portrays himself to be a realtor and is selling the house to a newly married couple, Jim and Judy. Then suddenly, Buzz's gang arrives and tries to get them, during this time, Plato reacts and kills a member of the gang out of fear. Plato following murdering someone hides from the police, Jim and Judy try to calm him and convince him the police are only here to help, but Plato panics and reacts badly to the bright light shining on him and the police then shoot him.
This film is unrealisitc in our society today, this movie is very interesting and influences people my age during the 1950s to recognize their authority. This movies represents a lesson to all that authority is needed from both parents to have a sound home. This movie probably did cause kids of that time to rebel, just as the characters did in the movie. Overall this film is very moving and causes lots of thought on how time and parenting has changed from then to today. The actors in this film did a fantastic job, playing the rolls of angry teenagers longing for fatherly figures in their lives, and they also did an excellent job of playing rebellious teens through vigourous action through the film. One actor I believe that could have improved is Judy(Natalie Wood) her character seemed to be very straight forward, but she doesn't seem to show sadness in her character very well, giving that scene an unrealistic feel. Overall I would give this film a thumbs up due to its live long lessons presented, and the actors fantastic acting skills through hard scenes as well as the more soft and serene love scenes. This film deserves to serve as an highly ranked film throughout my lifetime for its great setting, acting, and realistic aspects to the teenagers of that time,but this film does serve to be unrealsitic to those of the year 2012.
To start the film off Jim Stark, played by the extremely famous James Dean, is drunk in the middle of the street and is taking by police to the juvinele facility, where Jim realeases his depression and frustration of the lose of a father figure in his life. As a result of his mother in control, Jim encounters several troubling obstacles, and once trouble has arrived the Stark's are rooted up from their home and moved to a new place to start over. Throughout the movie Jim struggles to recieve the structured discipline he needs from his father, causing bad incidents to happen, thus his rebellion. In his new town, Jim runs into several bad infulences, but he finds one girl, Judy (Natalie Wood), who interests him. In this timeless encounter the two find themselves falling for each other, but keeping it secret was the key to save Judy's reputation. Judy was the popular girl in high-school, she had the best boyfriend, a tough guy named Buzz (Corey Allen), perfect friends, and all the things that come with being the most popular girl in school, and being that person she couldn't dare fall for some strange new kid. Just like Jim and every character in this film, Judy has issues with her father. In the film, Judy kisses her father on the cheeck and is scolded badly and being told that she's too old to be acting that way, demanding the attention from her father. Through Jim's crush for Judy, Buzz notices and presents some rough obstacles for Jim and ends up taking the fall for his actions.
On the first day at a new school, Plato (John Crawford) shows up giving Jim a friend, and a strange one at that. Plato like the other characters has a fatherly type issue, his father abandoned him, and now he needs that fatherly figure. Currently Plato is taken in by a black maid, who loves Plato and understands his situation.
As the film rolls on, problems arose between Jim and Buzz, and Buzz slashes Jim's car tires, and a knife fight begins outside the planetarium. From the knife fight a game of Chicken is announced to be happening between Jim and Buzz to see who the real "tough guy" is. Chicken is an immature game where stolen cars are driven off a cliff and the first person to bail out of the car is considered the "chicken". From this game, Buzz is blindsided by a trouble opening his door and drives himself off the cliff and dies. Reacting to his death, his girlfriend, Judy, takes herself and starts to turn her attention to Jim, like she's wanted to all along. Judy's attention to Jim, causes on thing to lead to another and thus they fall in love and all the tension between them has melted away. Then, Jim attempts to talk to his father, but his father shows him no support so Jim does the noble thing and goes to the police, where he is met up with Buzz's gang who chase him to prevent him from informing the police. Fearing Jim's saftey, Judy and Plato run to the abandoned mansion where it's safe and they can have fun. Once they arrive Plato portrays himself to be a realtor and is selling the house to a newly married couple, Jim and Judy. Then suddenly, Buzz's gang arrives and tries to get them, during this time, Plato reacts and kills a member of the gang out of fear. Plato following murdering someone hides from the police, Jim and Judy try to calm him and convince him the police are only here to help, but Plato panics and reacts badly to the bright light shining on him and the police then shoot him.
This film is unrealisitc in our society today, this movie is very interesting and influences people my age during the 1950s to recognize their authority. This movies represents a lesson to all that authority is needed from both parents to have a sound home. This movie probably did cause kids of that time to rebel, just as the characters did in the movie. Overall this film is very moving and causes lots of thought on how time and parenting has changed from then to today. The actors in this film did a fantastic job, playing the rolls of angry teenagers longing for fatherly figures in their lives, and they also did an excellent job of playing rebellious teens through vigourous action through the film. One actor I believe that could have improved is Judy(Natalie Wood) her character seemed to be very straight forward, but she doesn't seem to show sadness in her character very well, giving that scene an unrealistic feel. Overall I would give this film a thumbs up due to its live long lessons presented, and the actors fantastic acting skills through hard scenes as well as the more soft and serene love scenes. This film deserves to serve as an highly ranked film throughout my lifetime for its great setting, acting, and realistic aspects to the teenagers of that time,but this film does serve to be unrealsitic to those of the year 2012.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Struggle for Religious Equality: An Analysis of Dave Barry’s "Seeing the Forest through the Eyes of Our Children"
In "Seeing the Forest through the Eyes of Our Children", Barry uses sarcastic realism to address the theory of social equality among all people. Dave Barry uses repetition, logos, and hypophora as rhetoric devices throughout his essay to represent his claim to fight through the ridiculously intense struggle for social and religious equality for all humans.
The author uses repetition, more specifically epistrophe to demonstrate that if kids from different religions can get along, then anyone can get along. Telling the story of his daughter, the author purposely repeats "head" at the end of the dialogue between the two children in the beginning of the essay to give insight on the maturity level of a four year old child. His repetition evokes humor into the reader, by using childishly minded vocabulary to prove his point. Also, this epistrophe or repetition evaluates Barry's argument by providing insight on the setting and topic before the big picture of the essay is revealed. Dave Barry continues his repetition style through the essay, towards the end he brings back the children's dialogue and intentionally questions "But what is Jewish", to provide logical evidence or logos for his argument making him credible. His repetition makes the reader ponder the thoughts of religion and why a kid who is Jewish is unaware of what it is. Also, it proves that Barry is fighting for social equality in religion by stating that if kids can calmly discuss religion, then so can adults.
Dave Barry in his humorously interesting columns demonstrates several different types of stylistic and rhetorical strategies to provide detailed evidence for his purpose. In the conversation between the two young girls evidence is revealed, and his daughter Sophie answers her friends question stating "that means they're Jewish.". This use of logos allows the reader to ponder about why a child who has Jewish parents not understands what it means to be Jewish. Also, this logos or logical reasoning proves that the author’s purpose is the fight for social or religious equality for all. Barry continues his discussion in the essay by telling his daughters real question in the essay, "but what is Jewish", to allow real meaning to be brought forth in the column. Barry's logo here causes the reader to rhetorically ask what it does mean to be Jewish, thus giving insight on the social backgrounds of religions. Also, this proves that social and religious equality should be brought forth for all those involved in the world of religious quality.
Barry, in his powerfully unsettling column, continues his stylistic and rhetorical devices to influence the reader’s insightful views of his magnificent work. Using rhetorical questioning Barry towards the end of the essay speaks to the reader questioning “What’s my point?” to evoke humor, and then in the following sentence answers his question. His use of rhetorical questioning and hypophora, together create a reoccurring pattern that the reader realizes in several of Barry’s columns, but also the reader understands his humor through his satirical answers to the rhetorical questioning. Barry’s questioning and hypophora develop intense feeling to reveal the true so what he uses in writing his essay, which in this case is the race for the cause of social and religious equality. Also, his questioning continues, a few sentences after his previously asked question Barry cranks out another question relating to the hypophora of the earlier question, asking “is that being too naïve?” These rhetorical devices combined create intensely phenomenal humor to ease the readers mind to end the essay. Also, these devices help demonstrate Barry’s argument of religious equality and why we should all get along no matter what religion or Yankee fan we are.
Therefore, Barry uses several different but interestingly similar stylistic and rhetorical devices to further produce his claim of religious equality for all who believe in it. He uses hypophora, rhetorical questioning, epistrophe, repetition, and lastly logos to help back up his so what to bring about the big picture, or true meaning of his column or essay.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Kill 'Em! Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!
1.John McMurty's essay begins with a personal anecdote about the results of playing sports- especially football- since childhood. When he can no longer ignore his physical condition, he seeks treatment and is hospitalized. How does the anecdote lend credibility to his argument?
A). The anecdote gives his argument credibility because it's the authors own personal story rather than just facts that some other random person said. This makes the author credible because it lets the reader clearly understand that he knows and understands the topic of football and the consequences that come right along with it. His use of his own personal story, also gives his supporting ideas in his argument variety making his essay more interesting and credible.
2. Paragraphs 5-7 compare and contrast football and war. Is this comparison convincing? How does the comparison appeal to logos?
A). The comparison between football and war is very effective and convincing in McMurty's argument, it reveals war as being a logic reason as to how football is dangerous to society. The comparisons also stereotype football as being violent and deadly like a war, when in reality it can be if the players aren't playing the game correctly. His contrast however leads the reader to view football as being better than war. The comparisons appeal to logos, because they are logical resonings supporting McMurty's argument the dangerous sport of football.
5. McMurty also addresses the argument that games such as football allow us to discharge our "original-sin urge into less harmful channels than, say, war" (para. 15). Cite passages where McMurty counters this argument. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
A). McMurty counter addresses his earlier argument that people playing football "as [they] [move] through high school, college and pro leagues", make "[their] body dismantled. Piece by piece"(para. 9). This citied reference counters his argument because unlike the quote in paragraph 15, this quote shows football as dismantling bodies, therefore it being a bad sport, and in paragraph 15 football is viewed as an anger reliever. Also, he counters his arugument proving "[he] had learned that physical injury- giving it and taking it- is the real currency of the sport"(para.11). I do agree with what McMurty says in paragraph 15, football is a fun and entertaining sport for young men to participate in, it's a fantastic anger reliever as well as a stress reliever, if all players treat it as just a game. I agree with the author because i'm a football fan myself, and the author provides good logical reasoning to support that football can be dangerous, but not always.
6. Consider the language of football, especially the words shared by the military. What sports other than football have a militaristic side?
A). Other than football, the sports of hockey, paintball, soccer,and archery all seems to have a militaristic side. Hockey and soccer are militaristic in the way that you have defenders who defend your goal, just like in the military one group is defending their camp and position from being invaded by the opposing group. Also, those two sports involve teamwork, because in hockey if you don't work as a team then the person with the puck couldn't succesfully score a goal without the teams help, the same relates to soccer. Archery and paintball are militaristic because you aim at a certain target to obtain your goal, and in the military they have a certain goal and they obtain it by aiming at their target that's given to them. In paintball and archery agression is brought out on the targets, just like in football and the military after you shoot or hit someone you relieve anger and stress on you once you take the shot.
A). The anecdote gives his argument credibility because it's the authors own personal story rather than just facts that some other random person said. This makes the author credible because it lets the reader clearly understand that he knows and understands the topic of football and the consequences that come right along with it. His use of his own personal story, also gives his supporting ideas in his argument variety making his essay more interesting and credible.
2. Paragraphs 5-7 compare and contrast football and war. Is this comparison convincing? How does the comparison appeal to logos?
A). The comparison between football and war is very effective and convincing in McMurty's argument, it reveals war as being a logic reason as to how football is dangerous to society. The comparisons also stereotype football as being violent and deadly like a war, when in reality it can be if the players aren't playing the game correctly. His contrast however leads the reader to view football as being better than war. The comparisons appeal to logos, because they are logical resonings supporting McMurty's argument the dangerous sport of football.
5. McMurty also addresses the argument that games such as football allow us to discharge our "original-sin urge into less harmful channels than, say, war" (para. 15). Cite passages where McMurty counters this argument. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
A). McMurty counter addresses his earlier argument that people playing football "as [they] [move] through high school, college and pro leagues", make "[their] body dismantled. Piece by piece"(para. 9). This citied reference counters his argument because unlike the quote in paragraph 15, this quote shows football as dismantling bodies, therefore it being a bad sport, and in paragraph 15 football is viewed as an anger reliever. Also, he counters his arugument proving "[he] had learned that physical injury- giving it and taking it- is the real currency of the sport"(para.11). I do agree with what McMurty says in paragraph 15, football is a fun and entertaining sport for young men to participate in, it's a fantastic anger reliever as well as a stress reliever, if all players treat it as just a game. I agree with the author because i'm a football fan myself, and the author provides good logical reasoning to support that football can be dangerous, but not always.
6. Consider the language of football, especially the words shared by the military. What sports other than football have a militaristic side?
A). Other than football, the sports of hockey, paintball, soccer,and archery all seems to have a militaristic side. Hockey and soccer are militaristic in the way that you have defenders who defend your goal, just like in the military one group is defending their camp and position from being invaded by the opposing group. Also, those two sports involve teamwork, because in hockey if you don't work as a team then the person with the puck couldn't succesfully score a goal without the teams help, the same relates to soccer. Archery and paintball are militaristic because you aim at a certain target to obtain your goal, and in the military they have a certain goal and they obtain it by aiming at their target that's given to them. In paintball and archery agression is brought out on the targets, just like in football and the military after you shoot or hit someone you relieve anger and stress on you once you take the shot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)