Journal 2: So, What’s Next?

  

DUNG, NGUYEN THI KIM

Journal 2: So, What’s next?

Technologies are changing rapidly. As a result, it leads to the changes of learning and teaching in the future. I think that changes will bring both advantages and challenges. When finishing reading the New Media Consortium / Educause New Horizons Report I got many new things and I have new look in applying technology in education in the future.

Nowadays, more and more people expect to be able to work, learn, and study whenever and wherever they want to. That is the hot trend that will impulse the development of technology with new tools and effective services. I think that is the reason why our teaching will change in the near and far future. To save time optimally, instead of going to school, people tend to learn online. Education paradigms are shifting to include online learning, hybrid learning and collaborative models. There is a new emphasis in the classroom on more challenge-based and active learning. Challenge-based learning and similar methods foster more active learning experiences, both inside and outside the classroom. 

As technologies such as tablets and smartphones now have proven applications in higher education institutions, educators are leveraging these tools, which students already use to connect the curriculum with real life issues. It changes the way people interact and communicate with information as well as their surroundings. We call it “Mobile learning”. I think it is the most popular way for people to learn. Therefore, the way of teaching will be changed to meet with learners’ demands.

With that several trends of technology, I am sure it will create challenges in both teaching and learning. There are some challenges which we both understand and know how to solve. Such as: the gaps between technology and pedagogy. However, there are some difficult challenges that people know but they cannot be solved immediately. That is how to guide learners to narrow down the abundant sea of information on the Internet.

In the future, I think educators will train learners to become creators. In other words, many online courses will be designed for students to discover new things by themselves. The system of education will change too. People around the world can enjoy the same course. 

Journal 1: Technology Benefits and Challenges for Teachers

Journal 1: Technology Benefits and Challenges for Teachers

Media and technology can bring enormous benefits to the classroom. They allow to spice up lectures and help to make the material more accessible. But there are dangers too. In this talk, I want to share some my own experiences both as a teacher as well as a part of a team of a group involved in teacher training. The text will focus primarily on the special case of media and technology. It is an aspect of pedagogy, where the benefits and risks of teaching are accentuated well.

As a teacher I use technology to shake up old paradigms. I can illustrate real life applications in my lesson so that students can learn easily. With technology, I can use picture, sound and video to explain things better. The most powerful of technology I see it breaks the monotonicity of a lecture. Students will feel more interesting with the lesson if teachers use audio-visual channels. Because everything that students can see by their eyes, it makes them more understandable and exciting. When teachers know well how to apply technology in the lesson, they are no need to talk all the time like they used to do in the past. In addition, students will be more involved in the lesson. It means that teachers and students have more time to do other activities and exercises.

Although technology plays an important role in teaching and learning nowadays, it also have some challenges for teachers as well as students. Here are some more concrete examples. First of all, it is the problem with hardware failure. I myself got trouble with my computer or the projector when teaching with PowerPoint. It failed and I had to teach with another way that I did not prepare well. It made my lesson ineffective and made students get bored. Sometimes sound or video Cables can break when teaching listening. Or the Internet connection like blind spots for wireless. People cannot access to find the information or do exercises.

Secondly, even after having used a software for several years, I found it necessary to test things before class. Many things can go wrong. For computer algebra a systems, for examples, the software is keyed and needs internet access to work. This is one of the most challenges in teaching and learning through the internet. One of the most challenges for teachers when teaching using technology is that teachers work with others who are not as advanced with using technology. Especially, when teaching online, everything can be solved through the Internet. After the lesson, if students have some questions, they cannot talk with their teacher immediately. They have to wait for the next lesson.

The most important factor for a successful lecture remains the teacher. The interaction with the students and the clarity of the expositions can be far more important than any ideological parameters. A wide variety of teaching styles can work and can coexist in the same course: some used technology, others do not use it at all, some teachers are more formal, and others prefer to be more informal. It depends on a lot of factors to make a good lesson.

Nowadays, there are many free or cheap tools and services using technology available on the Internet. For example, Gimp, Movie Maker, Gmail, Blog, TeamViewer, zoom, etc.. It makes teaching and learning become more interesting and easier than ever before. With those who are resistant to using technology in the classroom will lag behind. I will show them the benefits of technology and show them how to use it to get the goals of teaching and learning.

The art of teaching in the classroom can be compared to the skill of preparing a meal in a restaurant, where the teacher is the cook and the students are the guests. The best efforts of teaching, the most skillful use of technology and the finest pedagogy can be ruined by a tiny mishap. Therefore, teachers have to use the suitable pedagogy and they have to refresh the lesson. The most important thing is that teachers have to know when and where to apply technology into the lesson.

NGUYỄN ANH TUẤN_ ENTRY 4

ENTRY 4

Argument Structures and Fallacies

ITEM 1

A professor is lecturing to his class.

Prof: "So you can see that a new and better morality is sweeping the nation. No longer are people with alternative lifestyles ashamed. No longer are people caught up in the outmoded moralities of the past."

Student: "Well, what about the ideas of the great thinkers of the past? Don't they have some valid points?"
Prof: "A good question. The answer is that they had some valid points in their own, barbaric times. But those are old, mouldy moralities from a time long gone. Now is a time for new moralities. Progress and all that, you know."

Student: "So would you say that the new moralities are better because they are newer?"
Prof: "Exactly. Just as the dinosaurs died off to make way for new animals, the old ideas have to give way for the new ones. And just as humans are better than dinosaurs, the new ideas are better than the old. So newer is literally better."

Student: "I see." 

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html

 

      + This sort of idea has the following form:

1.      X is new.

2.      Therefore X is correct or better.

       + Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty

Item 2:

có người nói : “Anh là ngỗng, vì anh ăn Bắp cải”

Source: Phương pháp giải các bài tập của Logic học, NXB Bách Khoa Hà Nội, 2010, trang 196

      + This statement has the following form:

           Almost all S are P                                                        Tất cả ngỗng ăn bắp cải (hiden)

           a is P                                                                            Anh ăn bắp cải

                                                                                               

            Therefore, a is S                                                            Nên, anh là ngỗng 

      + Fallacy type: Reasoning in a chain with almost all à wrong conclusion

                      

ITEM 3:

HLV Văn Sỹ: “Việt Nam thua do thiếu may mắn”

Source: http://www.baomoi.com/HLV-Van-Sy-Viet-Nam-thua-do-thieu-may-man/87/5322678.epi

è Week argument:

      +  Analysis:

                        “Đủ” may mắn là yếu tố duy nhất giúp một đội bóng dành chiến thắng (hiden)

                         Đội bóng Việt Nam thiếu may mắn

                         Đội bóng Việt Nam thua trận

+ The first premise is invalid.

Entry 4: Nguyễn_Thị_Thuỷ

ENTRY 4

Item 1:

            http://www.militaryplaques.com/store/love

False of presumption: False dilemma
- Analysis: This is a slogan to state the patriotism of American and American citizens. It means that “If you don’t love America, leave it”. Actually, there are still some other choices could be happened. For example, someone don’t love America but they are forced to work in there so they have to live in America beause of some reasons (good work environment, high salary....)

Item 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60HPbM101vQ

Structural fallacies (denying the antecedent):

If you eat Tiger Biscuit, then you can be healthy and take the lead.
Not eating Tiger Biscuit.
------------------------------------------
 
Therefore, not being healthy and taking the lead.
-> Denying the antecedent
That you eat Tiger Biscuit is not sufficient for a good healthy and the ability of taking the lead.

Item 3:

Một thời gian truyền hình có phát đoạn quảng cáo về cảnh ông chồng về nhà vào bếp nấu nướng, tắm rửa cho con cái và dạy con cái học bài… những clip như vậy khiến phụ nữ rất mừng vì cho rằng họ đã bình đẳng trước xã hội. Bây giờ, những đoạn quảng cáo như vậy rất ít…

http://vnexpress.net/gl/kinh-doanh/2011/11/dai-bieu-quoc-hoi-nong-voi-quang-cao-trong-nam-khinh-nu/

Structural fallacies:
Quảng cáo về cảnh ông chồng về nhà vào bếp nấu nướng, tắm rửa cho con… thể hiện bình đẳng giới. (If A, then B)
Có rất ít những đoạn quảng cáo như vậy. (Not A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do đó, vẫn còn bất bình đẳng giới trong xã hội. (Therefore, not B)
-> Denying the antecedent
In fact, those advertisements just want to introduce their products, not imply or aim at gender discrimination.

ENTRY 4 _ NGUYỄN THỊ KIM DUNG
                       
                                          ENTRY 4: ANALYSING ARGUMENT
item 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRGvMlUuX0

Argument errors: Content fallacies

1. logical fallacy-false dilemma

2. fallacy of presumption

3. inductive reasoning fallacy- hasty generalization.

Analysis:

1. MC Xoay :"Kê cao gối hoặc kê gối thấp".

 In fact, there are another positions like medium position, slightly high position or slightly low position,...rather than only high or low position.

---> logical fallacy-false dilemma

2.1.MC Xoay: “ nếu người ta ngáy thì cứ hồn nhiên mà ngáy tại sao lại phải kê cao”

->Pro.Cu Trong Xoay “anh nói thế là anh hơi ích kỷ”

2.2. MC Xoay “để làm sao cái đường cong quay về tròn  như cũ” ( Nguyen Hai Phong needed to fix his bycycle)

->Pro.Cu Trong Xoay:" Chứng tỏ anh này là cái người duy mĩ và tương đối cầu toàn"

Refering from only one utterance of one person, Pro.Cu Trong Xoay did not have enough premises but immediately jump to the conclusions of others' trait.
---> fallacy of presumption.

3.Chúng ta ngáy khi nào

Khi chúng ta đi ngủ

Tại sao lúc ngủ chúng ta lại ngáy

Khi  chúng ta hô hấp

Hít vào thở ra phát sinh ra tiếng gáy

Muốn triệt tận gốc việc ngáy

Đừng hô hấp nữa

The reasons lead to snoozing are not only by breathing itself but also many other causes.. For instance, the surplus amount of fat narrows the windpipe, the characteristics of the windpipe of the old and malformation of sinusitis,... contributing to snoozing.

--->fallacy of presumption (lack premises)

4.“người ta dạy được thú, chó làm toán, gấu chồng cây chuối, nhảy disco, voi đi xe đạp…

=>Cái gì chẳng dạy được
dogs, bears,.. are just some kinds of intelligent animal that can be taught to perform in the circus. This small number of animal is not enough to conclude that people cant train every kind of animals
--->inductive reasoning fallacy- hasty generalization.

5.
major premise: tất cả mọi thú vật đều có thể dạy được ( cái gì chẳng dạy được)
minor premise: trâu bò là thú vật

conclusion: trâu bò có thể dạy được (tập trung trâu bò để giáo dục ý thức)

mọi thú vật :S
đều có thể dạy được : P
trâu bò :a

=>structure :

 All S is P

a is S

a is P

the argument is valid but unsound because its major premise based on a hasty generization

Item 2

http://sachhiem.net/CHARLIE/CN_TGHG/PhunuHG.php

Trải qua 14 thế kỷ, kinh Koran đã gieo biết bao tai họa cho các phụ nữ Hồi giáo nhưng vì các tín đồ ngoan đạo đều coi Koran là "Chân lý Tối Hậu của Thiên Chúa" (The Final Truth of Allah) nên không ai dám coi đó là những điều vô lý hoặc bất công. Các tín đồ nam cũng như nữ không còn con đường nào khác là phải tuyệt đối vâng phục ý Chúa vì Đạo Hồi có nghĩa là sự vâng phục hoàn toàn ý của Chúa (Islam = Submission to God).

Kinh Koran minh thị xác nhận uy quyền của đàn ông đối với đàn bà: "Đàn ông có quyền đối với đàn bà vì Chúa đã sinh ra đàn ông cao quí hơn đàn bà..Đàn bà tốt phải biết vâng lời đàn ông vì đàn ông săn sóc cả phần tinh thần của đàn bà. Đối với những phụ nữ không biết vâng lời, đàn ông có quyền ruồng bỏ, không cho nằm chung giường và có quyền đánh đập".

Ø       Good women should obey to men                       if A, then B

       Don’t obey men                                             not B

     ----------------------                           ----------------------

        Not good women                                therefore not A

valid but unsound  (because false premise: good women should  obey men)

Ø       God born men and women                          valid but unsound ( false premise)

           God decide power to men and women

            Noble is power

            God give men more noble than women

         ----------------------

            Men more power than women

In the sentence :" Đối với những phụ nữ không biết vâng lời, đàn ông có quyền ruồng bỏ, không cho nằm chung giường và có quyền đánh đập". Fallacy of  presumption in particular,slippery slope because insufficient to conclude that.

Addition, there is fallacy of relevance

Appeal to tradition ( in this case is ritual custom .It force women to strict rules and regulations… Women have to follow it. They became independent, unprotected and suffer many bias..)

Appeal to consequence:

Women are be abused, tortured, beaten if they don’t obey men….   →   they have to obey men if they don’t want to suffer violence and discrimination

Item 3

 http://scotthibberson.co.uk/eLearningLibrary/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/books.png

If you buy books, you have happiness               if A, then B            →structual fallacy

You don’t buy books                                           not A

-----------------------                           ----------------------- 

You don’t have happiness                            not B              

Having something by buying it    valid but unsound ( false premise: books is                         

 can’t buy  happiness               happiness. In addition, I think there is Fallacy of        

  can buy   books                   presumption in particular, slippery slope because                

 books is happiness               insufficient to conclude that. It  depends on reader’s

 ----------------------                  interest, attitude and his feeling about books)                                          

Buying books is buying happiness

fallacy of relevance:

·         Buying books means buying happiness            

·         Books is happiness

weak anology ( we can’t say buying books means buying happiness because books and happiness is not in the same field. Therefore, it can’t say: that is kind of same thing!. As I said before,  it is not always true that Books is happiness , it depend on each person feelings.)

ENTRY 4_ĐINH KIM ANH

ENTRY 4

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

Item 1: Video: Advertisement of Number One

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xhYyYN2wKk

1. Description of the advertisement:

A man drinking Number One can be so strong, active and energetic that he could save the woman. Whereas, the other man who does not drink Number One can not be such strong.

2. Argument structure:

-         Premise: If you drink Number One, then you are strong, active and energetic.

-         Premise: You do not drink Number One.

-         Conclusion: Therefore, you are not strong, active and energetic.

3. Fallacy : Structural fallacy - Denying the antecedent.

4. Analysis:

If A, then B

Not A

Þ not B

The similar valid:

If A, then B

Not B

Þ not A

In fact, there are many factors making a man strong, active and energetic apart from Number One, such as: exercises, reasonable diet, and so on.

Item 2 : Image :

Source : http://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/truth

1.     Fallacy : Structural fallacy - Reasoning with “some”.

2.     Argument structural:

Penguins = S

Black and white = P

Old TV shows = Q

-         Premise: Some S are P.

-         Premise: Some Q are P.

-         Conclusion: Some S are Q.

3.     Analysis:

The phrase “ black and white” is too general, and there are many things which are “black and white”. “Penguins” and “some old TV shows” can be “black and white” but they can not be the same. In this argument, the premises are right, but the inference are wrong à invalid argument.

Item 3: Video: "Don't Wake Up in a Roadside Ditch"

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udQSHWpL88

1. Description:

-  When your cable company keeps you on hold, you get angry. 

- When you get angry, you go blow-off steam. 

- When you go blow-off steam, accidents happen. 

- When accidents happen, you get an eye-patch. 

- When you get an eye-patch, people think you’re tough. 

- When people think you’re tough, people want to see how tough. 

- And when people want to see how tough, you wake-up in a roadside ditch. 

- Don’t wake-up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of cable. 

2. Fallacy: Fallacy of presumption - Slippery slope

3. Analysis:

- When your cable company keeps you on hold (hidden premise: people get angry when their company puts them on hold).

- When you get angry (hidden premise: people go blow off when they get angry à factual error).

- When you go blow off (hidden premise: people make accident when they go blow off à factual error).

- When accidents happen (hidden premise: people get eye-patch when accidents happen à factual error).

- When you get an eye-patch (hidden premise: you are thought to be tough when you get an eye-patch à factual error).

- When people think you are tough (hidden premise:  people want to see how tough when they think you are tough à factual error).

- When people want to see how tough (hidden premise: people will make you wake up in a roadside ditch when they want to see how tough à factual error).

This argument has lots of insufficient and untrue premises which lead to other false premises. Consequently, the conclusion “get rid of cable” seems to be unreasonable and unsound.

Item 4: Saying:

“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists…”

(George W. Bush, The Washington Post, 2001)

Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

1.     Fallacy: Fallacy of presumption - False dilemma.

2.     Analysis:

George W. Bush, in his speech, declared that: “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”. He only gave readers 2 choices: “with us” and “with terrorists”. However, in fact, there are some other choices which could be made by every nation apart from these 2 selections, they can decide to be neutral, not “with us” or “with terrorists”, to name just a few.

 Item 5: Image:

Source: http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2011/01/11/logical-fallacy-post-hoc/

1.     Fallacy : Fallacy of presumption - Post-hoc fallacy.

2.     Analysis :

-         The issue that the bear said that the white dog was poopy-head does not cause the conflict between the pig and the turtle. However, the white dog blames this conflict on the bear à false premise.

-         The issue that the bear said that the white dog was poopy-head = event A.

-         The conflict between the pig and the turtle = event B.

-    Event A happens before event B; however, event A can not be the cause of event B.