Chapters 3 & 16 Response

Chapter 3:
First of all, I really didn't like this chapter. It wasn't written very well, in my opinion, and I really don't think the author of the chapter knew what she was talking about. She used quotes left and right and didn't really connect them in a way that made sense to me. Aside from that, though, I thought the parts of the chapter I actually understood (usually just the very long quote she used) was pretty interesting. The part that really got to me was when she had the quote from Johnson about the parallel universe. What if video games had come before books? Where would society be right now? Would we have people who were completely against books and refused to read? (Not like we don't have that now....) Or would we have people who chose to read over playing video games, even though they had grown up on video games? Personally, I think video games have their time and place, but I do not think they should be taking the place of books and instruction in school. Is using the Internet and other technologies good for teaching? Of course they are. But they shouldn't completely replace actual teaching. Playing educational video games as children is probably good. The bright colors and the movements stimulate the brain and then they do things like math or spelling in a fun way that actually helps them. Playing video games like Black Ops or Nazi Zombies or anything like that isn't educational. How can it be? The person playing the game is sitting there killing zombies or whatever else might be in the game. That's not educational. And anyone who says otherwise would be in for a huge arguement with someone like me.

Chapter 16:
In this chapter, the poem that the girl wrote about what teachers need to know to motivate students is what really got to me. The underachieving students know how teachers feel about them and it's not fair to them. Students from low-income families or any of the other sterotypical things have just as much of a shot at making it as a student who doesn't come from one of those places. Additionally, a student who isn't from a sterotype is just as likely to drop out of school. So why do teachers focus so much more and trying to teach the "underachieving"? I think that teachers and schools should treat all of the students in the same way. No one group of students should have some kind of special treatment. The more equally you treat the students, the more likely they will compete for the better grade, which, as a teacher, isn't that what you want? Students should want to get better grades than their classmates, without the pressure. Sure, some students do come from a poor family or have a bad home life, so they sometimes need a little special attention. But that should come before or after school. Not in a whole separate class where teachers basically treat you like you're stupid and don't know anything. I think schools should really look at how they are handling students from low income places and they should treat them with just as much respect and dignity as they would a student from a different kind of family. That's what is going to motivate them to do better. Not being placed in a separte class, away from their friends and away from a challenge.