Sources

Works Cited

Djaji, Slobadan. "Illegal Immigration and Resource Allocation." International Economic Review 38 (1997): 97-117. JSTOR. Elmhurst College, Elmhurst. 04 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Illegal Immigration and Economy.

Ethier, Wilfred J. "Illegal Immigration." The American Economic Review 76 (1986): 258-262. JSTOR. Elmhurst College, Elmhurst. 04 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Illegal Immigration and Economy.

Friedberg, Rachel M., and Jennifer Hunt. "The Impact of Immigrants on Host Country Wages, Employment and Growth." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (1995): 23-44. JSTOR. Elmhurst College, Elmhurst. 04 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Illegal Immigration and Economy.

Hanson, Gordon H., and Antonio Spilimbergo. "Illegal Immigration, Border Enforcement, and Relative Wages: Evidence From Apprehensions At the U.S.-Mexico Border." The American Economic Review 89 (1999): 1337-1357. JSTOR. Elmhurst College, Elmhurst. 04 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Illegal Immigration and Economy.

Hanson, Gordon H., Raymond Robertson, and Antonio Spilimbergo. "Does Border Enforcement Protect U.S. Workers From Illegal Immigration"" The Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (2002): 73-92. 4 Oct. 2007 .

Summary/Response "Computers and Technology"

Alex Head
Summary Response to “Computers and Technology”
Richard Ohmann in “Computers and Technology” argues against the notion that all schools from elementary to college need computers in their classroom in order to prosper. Although there is evidence that some schools are making educational progress like the high school in “Hundred, W. Va., [that] leapt across the digital divide and now rank ‘above national mean in every subject’”, Ohmann argues that “this movement is by no means triumphantly linear” (2). Ohmann points out that even though some schools are making progress it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have to rely on internet and computer technology to raise grades, we should also look to traditional methods that we used to rely on.
Ohmann refers to how computers can be useful in finding information quickly and offering an easy and convenient way to communicate between students and teachers but in the classroom the computer usually backfires in producing the outcome schools are looking for. Students end up “tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages” and students are online for many things but not usually academic research (3). Students are using the Internet in ways that are more detrimental to their learning than what the original purpose was. If they’re not spending their time “horsing around”, they’re finding ways to “plagiarize more effectively” than before (3). Bringing computers and technology into the classroom was supposed to better aid the students in furthering their education but so far it seems to be only hindering any sort of learning.
Teachers too are getting frustrated and fed up with computers and the technology in their classrooms. Too often teachers aren’t trained in this new era of teaching so when the computer crashes that has that days notes, the teacher has to rely on another method of getting through the day. Ohmann says that “there is little evidence so far of gains in student achievement owing to use of this technology” because it hasn’t been well integrated into the classrooms just yet (3). Inadequate training and understanding of how computers and technology can benefit a classroom have made it more of a stressful obstacle than a helpful guidance.
Ohmann’s argument seems to largely contradict the idea of having computers and technology in the classroom but he’s not saying it’s all detrimental to learning. He agrees that it can be very useful and helpful in a classroom to have the Internet at your fingertips for both the teacher and the students. Ohmann is pointing out that its just not necessary for all schools to rely so heavily on computers and technology to get their student’s standards to average or above average. Computers and technology should be used as an aid not as a crutch.

Ex. 2 P. 97

Alex Head
Exercise 2 P. 97
Both articles argue whether or not computers and technology are hindering or furthering education, each takes a separate and different stand but each make strong and convincing arguments.
In “Computers and Technology” Richard Ohmann argues that computers aren’t necessary tools in the classroom in order to further education. We should in fact be relying on traditional methods before too quickly turning to computers and technology to save us. Ohmann says that computers and technology are creating diversions in the classroom and students aren’t paying attention to the professor but rather sending out “e-mail messages…and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A’s” (Ohmann, 3). Teachers too, Ohmann finds, are annoyed and frustrated with computers and technology. Too often they crash and creating chaos and deterring “them from heavier reliance on the technology” (Ohmann, 3). Where Ohmann is arguing against leaning on having computers and technology so readily available in the classroom, Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee in their article “Video Games and the Future of Learning” push for computers and technology to aid in educating our youth. They argue that computer games are more than entertainment but way of learning. Games all the opportunity for “situated understanding” through “the virtual worlds of games” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, 4). These games force students to think through the mind of a soldier, a mechanic, an architect…etc it’s helping the students think in ways they usually don’t even notice. They are learning skills through doing not through hearing or being told like in a traditional classroom. The students through “playing games…” are “developing a set of effective social practices” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, 4). Skills that aren’t developed in a classroom are developed through these interactive computer games.
Richard Ohmann provides excellent detail about how computers and technology can be hindering to a classroom but with proper training and understanding computers and technology can be used effectively in a classroom. Most often the problem resides in the responsibility between the student and teacher. The teacher needs to know how to use the technology and what to do if something malfunctions and needs to know how to monitor the students appropriately. The student on the other hand needs to be responsible and use proper classroom conduct and use the computers and technology for what they're there for not to goof about and misuse classroom time and resources. Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee are very thorough in their argument about how computer games can be and possibly will soon be very effective in the learning process of students everywhere but they don’t propose how to make games that are effective learning tools. They have clearly don’t a lot of research on the topic but fail to give an example of a game that could be used in the classroom to help both the students and teachers. They also don’t address the problems that could be faced in a classroom with all the computers and technology available to the students, the problems that Ohmann addresses in his article.
Even though Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee don’t have an answer to what seems to be a flawless way of getting children engaged in learning I find that their argument is very strong and hard to argue against. They cite many examples of different types of games, from building a city to being a soldier, that show how the games involved different levels of thinking that often times aren’t reached in a classroom. Students are able to reflect and communicate with other students thus engaging in higher level thinking just through communication. This way of involving the students in what probably seems to them a seemingly mindless way of learning, forces them to think in ways they most likely never thought of before. The students get engaged in ways the teacher can’t.
In each article the author(s) argue for whether or not computers and technology introduce a new and helpful way to engage students in learning, both articles make a contrasting point of view but each provide strong and convincing arguments. However I do side more with Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, in that there is more to video games than we think, there is the possibility to get the students thinking on higher levels than what they know. My point here-that interactive computer games should be considered to be used in classrooms-should interest those who feel computers and technology are overused and unnecessary in classrooms. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point should speak to anyone who cares about the larger issue of how to get our students engaged in learning and find useful ways to aid them in thinking in different ways than what they are used to.

Synthesizing "Computers and Technology" and "Video Games and the Future of Learning"

Alex Head
Synthesis of Two Articles
Both articles argue whether or not computers and technology are hindering or furthering education, each takes a separate and different stand but each make strong and convincing arguments.
In “Computers and Technology” Richard Ohmann argues that computers aren’t necessary tools in the classroom in order to further education. We should in fact be relying on traditional methods before too quickly turning to computers and technology to save us. Ohmann says that computers and technology are creating diversions in the classroom and students aren’t paying attention to the professor but rather sending out “e-mail messages…and otherwise multitask their way through their M.B.A’s” (Ohmann, 3). Teachers too, Ohmann finds, are annoyed and frustrated with computers and technology. Too often they crash and creating chaos and deterring “them from heavier reliance on the technology” (Ohmann, 3). Where Ohmann is arguing against leaning on having computers and technology so readily available in the classroom, Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee in their article “Video Games and the Future of Learning” push for computers and technology to aid in educating our youth. They argue that computer games are more than entertainment but way of learning. Games all the opportunity for “situated understanding” through “the virtual worlds of games” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, 4). These games force students to think through the mind of a soldier, a mechanic, an architect…etc it’s helping the students think in ways they usually don’t even notice. They are learning skills through doing not through hearing or being told like in a traditional classroom. The students through “playing games…” are “developing a set of effective social practices” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, 4). Skills that aren’t developed in a classroom are developed through these interactive computer games.
Richard Ohmann provides excellent detail about how computers and technology can be hindering to a classroom but with proper training and understanding computers and technology can be used effectively in a classroom. Most often the problem resides in the responsibility between the student and teacher. The teacher needs to know how to use the technology and what to do if something malfunctions and needs to know how to monitor the students appropriately. The student on the other hand needs to be responsible and use proper classroom conduct and use the computers and technology for what they're there for not to goof about and misuse classroom time and resources. Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee are very thorough in their argument about how computer games can be and possibly will soon be very effective in the learning process of students everywhere but they don’t propose how to make games that are effective learning tools. They have clearly don’t a lot of research on the topic but fail to give an example of a game that could be used in the classroom to help both the students and teachers. They also don’t address the problems that could be faced in a classroom with all the computers and technology available to the students, the problems that Ohmann addresses in his article.
Even though Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee don’t have an answer to what seems to be a flawless way of getting children engaged in learning I find that their argument is very strong and hard to argue against. They cite many examples of different types of games, from building a city to being a soldier, that show how the games involved different levels of thinking that often times aren’t reached in a classroom. Students are able to reflect and communicate with other students thus engaging in higher level thinking just through communication. This way of involving the students in what probably seems to them a seemingly mindless way of learning, forces them to think in ways they most likely never thought of before. The students get engaged in ways the teacher can’t.
In each article the author(s) argue for whether or not computers and technology introduce a new and helpful way to engage students in learning, both articles make a contrasting point of view but each provide strong and convincing arguments. However I do side more with Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee, in that there is more to video games than we think, there is the possibility to get the students thinking on higher levels than what they know.

P. 38 Ex. 2

Alex Head
P. 38 Ex. 2

1. David Zinczenko makes a valid point that the fast food companies are reaching out to individuals, mainly children-through their happy meals that come with cool little racecars or Barbie dolls, and the children aren’t fully knowledgeable about the food they are consuming. They don’t know that these products have a “proven health hazard” if they do they don’t know what that really means. So it is easy to quickly point the finger of blame at the fast food companies, why can’t they take the responsibility to at least make sure that their consumers are aware of what they are really consuming.
But I would suggest to these parents, who have children fighting obesity due to consuming too much of the fast food products, to have home cooked meals prepared for their children. I am aware that many parents work long hours 5-7days a week but that doesn’t mean they can’t take a few minuets to make sure their child has a lunch prepared for them before the following school day. And to make sure that before they leave for work, if they’re not going to be home for dinner, to have something either prepared for the child to warm up in the microwave or have something easily pre-parable for the child to make itself. Even if it is a frozen dinner that just needs to be microwave, there are plenty of those dinners that are going to offer a much more healthier meal than any fast food company can offer.
2. David Zinczenko makes a valid point that the fast food companies are reaching out to individuals, mainly children-through their happy meals that come with cool little racecars or Barbie dolls, and the children aren’t fully knowledgeable about the food they are consuming. They don’t know that these products have a “proven health hazard” if they do they don’t know what that really means. So it is easy to quickly point the finger of blame at the fast food companies, why can’t they take the responsibility to at least make sure that their consumers are aware of what they are really consuming.
Fast food restaurants need to make a change, whether it’s in the food they’re serving or to make it more apparent to the consumer what exactly they are consuming. Legal prosecutions may seem like the easiest, quickest way to solve these problems but they can get lengthy and somewhat expensive. The fast food companies do have some changing to do but turning so quickly to just suing the company lets the children and their parents of the hook, why don’t they have to be responsible for what is being consumed? Both parties need to be aware of the consequences here, though it needs to start with the fast food companies making the health hazards aware to their consumers.
3. Even though both arguments begin the same, the endings are rather different. One puts the majority of the blame on the parents not taking responsibility to make sure their children have something healthy to eat even though they aren’t home. And the other faults most of the blame on the fast food companies, though recognizing that both the parents and children need to take some blame and be aware of the health hazards that lie with eating too much fast food.

Finding the They Say

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14040573/detail.html

The "They Say" in this argument is that Michael Vick should be punished and sent to jail for taking part in dogfighting...he admitted to helping kill six to eight pit bulls and supplying money for gambling on the fights.

Whoopi Goldburg says that it's not entirely his fault because of where he grew up...this happened a lot and wasn't looked down on...she says that even though he did come to realize that it wasn't the right thing to be doing-he at first was unaware that dogfighting was cruel because of where he was raised.

This "They Say" is not stated directly in the beginning but implied and then brought up further in the discussion between Whoopi and her co-stars.

http://www.comcast.net/tv/index.jsp?cat=TELEVISION&fn=/2007/09/06/756729.html&cvqh=itn_marykate

The "They Say" is that Mary Kate Olsen doesn't smile for the paparazzi.

Mary Kate Olsen replies by stating that she doesn't think its appropriate to be photographed outside of the redcarpet or a photo shoot...she doesn't want the paparazzi getting into her private life and then ending up on some crazy magazine list insinuating something about her life based on one photo they took of her walking somewhere.

The "They Say" is stated directly within the first paragraph.