Log in

No account? Create an account
m3lly_b3lly -- Day [entries|friends|calendar]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Week 5 Reading #1 [04 Oct 2005|05:58pm]
[ mood | happy ]

“Children, Child Abuse, and Cyberporn” by Mike Godwin on the Electronic Frontier Foundation page

This article is a good tool for differentiating between lots of different terms that are often kind of blurry. It is based on another article that was featured in the Times magazine. Although the general definition of pornography is something that contains sexual content of some sort, it isn’t considered to be illegal unless it appears to be obscene or it’s child pornography. The definition of obscene is if fails to meet 3 requirements. First, if the material is what the state considers to be inappropriate, it is considered obscene. Secondly, if the material is offensive to a reasonable man in the standard community, it’s considered obscene. Lastly, the material must lack literary, artistic, musical, or political value. With regards to child pornography, none of those guidelines actually apply when real children are used to depict sexual acts because the focus is no loner on the content of the material but rather the conduct of the material. If one were to use computer-generated images of children engaging in sexual acts that would not be considered child pornography because real children were not actually used in the process. I think that it doesn’t matter whether the material is depicting real children or computer-generated children, no one should be posting images of “children” engaging in sexual acts. IF, for any reason, children come across such material, how do you think they will grow up?

Even though there are chances that children will come across some type of pornography online or pedophiles will contact them and send them indecent material, it’s actually quite rare. As it states in the article, the chances are much greater for a child to come across predators on the street corner rather than on the internet. In any case, I feel that parents should be with their children when they are surfing the net all the time (at least at the beginning to get the children set up on certain programs).

1 comment|give a thought

Week 5 Reading #2 [04 Oct 2005|06:25pm]
[ mood | complacent ]

“Literacy Network: Using Computer Network Technology to Support Deaf Students’ Meaning Making in Science” by Babette Moeller on the Center for Children & Technology Page

Studies have shown that individuals who are deaf often have difficulty at school because poor literacy skills and writing abilities. By the time students finished high school, their reading level was generally around the fourth grade. With the help of technology in the schools, the students are given the opportunities to share their thoughts and ideas with other students or teachers using programs that let them have group conferencing, send/receive email, or analyze data (using such programs as SPSS).

As it was found with the study that’s presented in the article, having this technology in classrooms can benefit the outcome of students who are deaf. However, the teacher must have some training on how to integrate the use of computers into their usual curricula. Overall, the teachers who were trained to integrate this form of technology into their classroom felt that there was an improvement in the students. For example, it was noted that the students seemed to collaborate more with other students and their vocabulary and descriptive skills improved. On the other hand, some students did not benefit as much from the computers and that may be because they lacked in computer skills to begin with. I think that computers can greatly improve deaf students’ ability to communicate with other people without the awkward barrier of not being able to use ASL. Also, if there are deaf teachers as well, it would be easier for the students and the teachers to communicate with each other (for extra support or to ask questions).

4 comments|give a thought

[ viewing | October 4th, 2005 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]