News Report #3

Industry Makes Pitch that Smartphones Belong in the Classroom
by Matt Richtel and Brad Stone
February 15, 2009
www.nytimes.com

This article basically discusses the relatively new belief by many that new smartphones have a place in the classroom in order to help students achieve better grades. The main argument for this idea is the fact that smartphones are much like laptops in many aspects, except for being smaller, cheaper, and more coveted by students. Findings from studies done in North Carolina are to be released soon, with results showing that students with smartphones in the classroom performed twenty-five percent better on an end of the year algebra exam than did their peers who did not have the accessibility of a smartphone. This is not the first attempt to integrate cell phones into the class room. Last year, 2,500 New York public school students received a free Samsung flip phone, and could get prepaid minutes for things such as good behavior and good test scores. In addition, teachers could text their students reminders about deadlines. However, the project was ended because of lack of money.

I believe that smartphones in the classroom could be effective up to a point. Although they may be smaller than a laptop, I feel like it is much easier and efficient to use a laptop in the classroom, because of the larger screen, and the ease of typing. However, I do like the idea started by the New York public schools of using smartphones for communication between teachers and students. I feel like communication would be the most effective reason to utilize smartphones into the classroom. However, if there are other ideas and details, I am definitely open to hear them.

Reading Report #2

“Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?”

This article discussed whether or not the online, anyone-can-edit encyclopedia Wikipedia can ever be fully accepted in the world of academia, or if it is doomed to be viewed as inaccurate and not a trustworthy source for information. On Wikipedia, it is possible for anyone to simply enter information without any fact checking or substance editing. Because of this, many individuals do not see Wikipedia as a reliable source for information. There have been instances in which the flaws of Wikipedia have been exposed, specifically when Alexander M. C. Halavais, an assistant professor at Quinnipiac University, purposefully edited certain entries in Wikipedia in order to make them false, and prove that anything that an individual may want on Wikipedia can be inserted very easily. However, there are those who feel that Wikipedia is not necessarily that bad, and not as inaccurate as once thought. Studies show that Wikipedia only averages one more mistake per entry than the Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia averaging four mistakes, and Britannica averaging three. Basically, there is a split feeling regarding Wikipedia, with some people denying its use as an academic source of information, and others claim that the information contained in Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable.

Personally, I feel that Wikipedia is acceptable to use as long as the facts are verifiable. One may have to do some additional research to verify information found on Wikipedia that may seem a little “iffy.” Overall, I feel that this was a very well written article. It adequately provides both sides of the argument regarding Wikipedia so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusion regarding the subject. In addition, good facts and examples are given to support the information within the article. I enjoyed reading this article, because I was able to learn about facts relating to Wikipedia and its ease of editing that I never knew before, specifically how individuals intentionally “vandalized” Wikipedia to show how anyone can edit its information. This was a very well organized, well written article that did a very good job in its goal of relaying an unbiased story and allowing one to make up his or her own mind on the legitimacy of Wikipedia.