Write this Down… By Hand.

North America Group.
Week 11: “The New Elementary School: Should Children Write with Computer or Continue with Paper?”

Write this Down… By Hand.

Change is inevitable. Technology is the future after all. But should one of technology’s great inventions, the computer, replace the simple pen and paper in elementary schools? In my opinion, the answer is definitely no.

For one thing, we still write by hand…a lot. Even with the increased prevalence of computers in schools, and the world, writing by hand is still necessary. Just think about it for a second… Even if you do a lot of writing on the computer, you also have times when writing by hand is just necessary or may even be the better option. Whether it be a short note on the palm of your hand, filling out a form at the DMV, taking notes in class, or signing your name on a card, we still write by hand a lot.

It’s much more personal too. Before a child learns how to type, s/he should first learn to write the letters by hand, feel the movement of the pen, make the shapes in his/her own unique way. That’s much more personal and tangible than simply pushing some buttons. And on the subject of uniqueness, does every person in the world have their own unique font? No, they do not. But everyone has their own unique handwriting.

Writing by hand also serves as a memory aid. I don’t know how some people can sit in class and take notes on their laptops. I can’t even focus on what I wrote myself when I’m typing up a paper I handwrote previously. It’s just mindless keystrokes. I see an “E” and I push that key to type one. It feels like it’s not even part of a word, it’s just a button to push. I guess it might be a little different with note taking since you actually have to focus on the full words being spoken, but even then, I’ve attempted to take notes while someone was talking and I found myself not understanding a word the person said because all I did was focus on the individual words, not the sentences or the meaning behind the sentences. I just pushed buttons and retained nothing. Writing by hand is different. It requires a different level of involvement and concentration, and this helps people remember things better.

So, in my opinion, elementary schools (especially the lower grade levels) should focus on writing by hand. First. As I said earlier, I do believe that technology is the future, so having children learn to type and use word processing software is not only a good idea it’s also very important, but it’s not the first step. Like learning to walk before you can run, writing by hand should come before typing, and should be emphasized especially in elementary schools.

To close, I would like to give you all a little something special. Something that you can’t normally see when you read my articles. My handwriting. I think you’ll see a little more of me that way. Something you couldn’t get from just reading what I typed.

“My mom is the only one who still writes me letters. And there's something visceral about opening a letter - I see her on the page. I see her in her handwriting.” ~ Steve Carell

By Shadow, United States of America

20 years old

Generation I: Conventional Methods in a Technological Age.

Oceania Group.
Week 11: “The New Elementary School: Should Children Write with Computer or Continue with Paper?”

Generation I: Conventional Methods in a Technological Age.

Technology is simply an amazing thing. The way in which we all do simple tasks has continually evolved over the last 20 years. Many of us will have lived through and witnessed, in a very short period of time, numerous shifts in how technology has helped us, hindered us and controlled us.

Children of today, as opposed to how it would’ve been only years ago, have an endless amount of consumer electronics at their disposal. And not only at home, but even in the classroom. I am not completely aware of the situation in other parts of the world, but I know that children in Australia as young as 6 are being sufficiently exposed to iPads at school. My neighbors, whose children go to the local government primary school, were literally given no option but to purchase the device for them to use at school.

The first issue presented by this, which is also relevant to the use of computers in the classroom, is the distraction they inevitably introduce. Children are smart, and having been brought up into this age of technology they are able to learn how to use these devices a lot faster than older generations, and in ways that we wouldn’t even think of. Simply put, they will always be used to play games whilst the teacher is not looking, even by the brightest students in the class.

Secondly, what is the actual benefit of subjecting young children to technology at such a young age? Is there any proof that they will learn any better with technology than with conventional teaching methods? And does technology actually aid teachers in doing their job better? I would argue the opposite. In my country the quality of primary school teachers has only declined over time, and the introduction of another way for young teachers, many of whom only choose this profession because of the holidays, to do even less on the job is only helping the quality of education which children receive continue to fall.

Finally, the old fashioned scientific argument. In high school, why were we all forced to take notes manually, despite the fact that everything and more was available not only in our textbooks but also on the internet? Because physically writing things down aids memory and learning. When you take away this aspect from note-taking, one might as well play some Angry Birds instead as the practice becomes futile.

Although technology will only dominate our daily routines more and more in the future, it is important that we retain some classic methods of doing things. Literacy of students over the past 20 years has only increased, so let’s not do anything to jeopardize these improvements due to an over eagerness to introduce children to consumer electronics before it is absolutely necessary.

By Francesco F., Australia
20 years old

Reflections about the Freedom of Speech.

Europe Group.
Week 10: “Je Suis Charlie.”

Reflections about the Freedom of Speech.

“Je Suis Charlie”: three words that have traveled all over the world and upset all of Europe. The terrorist attack on the offices of the French satiric magazine have traced a new line in European history and have shown how vulnerable we are to such violent attacks. Millions of people, including a lot of heads of states and governments, united in the squares to mourn the victims and march against the violence of the extremists. The terrorists had not only killed some people, but they had also tried to kill a principle: the freedom of speech, which was fully represented in the French satire magazine “Charlie Hebdo” which nowadays is the symbol of that freedom. This has led to the debate about freedom of speech and whether or not in the case of satire there should be limits, and what those limits should be.

In what ways should the freedom of speech be censored? A general rule for censoring it does not exist. We should consider each situation alone. Still, there exists two cases when we should always (or almost always) reduce or apply some limitation to that freedom: When the recipients of a generic form of communication are psychologically weak (like children or teenagers who are influenced a lot by other’s thoughts) and when the message is violent or shows extremist ideologies (actually I’m not talking about violent film scenes, but about the fundamentalist propaganda that instigates unfounded violence).

With this said, we can now start to talk about the case of “Charlie Hebdo” and reply to the following questions: Should the freedom of speech in satire be censored somehow? Should the most offensive satirical cartoon of the French magazine be banned?

 Here begins the most complex part of our conversation, so pay a bit more attention. Let’s reflect, first of all, about what satire is. In the common conception, at least here in Italy, satire is a comedy form that uses news from politics and/or religion for its comedy.
But is it really like that? Satire is not only comedy, it has other benefits as well: it’s a form of communication that takes world news, often discarded from newspapers, and reformulates it into a comic version, making it accessible to all the people who don’t follow traditional mass media, and it allows us to see a fact from a different point of view, giving us the freedom to create a personal thought about it. If satire functions like that, censuring it becomes a negative thing.

How the censorship of satire related? The only form of tolerable censorship is the one that distinguishes the right satire from the “satire of hatred”. In my opinion, the cartoons or the people who use fake news, unproved prejudices or just attack or offend should be censored, but when the news is proven true, it must be told and should never be censored. That is the kind of satirical cartoon “Charlie Hebdo” is. It shows the negative sides of politics and religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. So why should the Islamic world protest against that? Satire hits everyone in the same way: Italians, for example, were objects (and even now we are) of the foreign satire about our errors and stupid things we’ve done (like about our short governments or high level of corruption in politics), and as long as we continue to make errors, satire will continue to hit them. And we’ll continue to do the same with them. It’s almost an alarm bell to try to change the situation.

The fear of extreme Islam will not save one from negative opinions, but changing the negative aspects of the religion could possibly end the satire. But also where there is the freedom of opinion, there is the freedom to criticize. If the satire criticized without any real motivation, the protests might make sense, but there is an important fact, at least for Europeans, that we must not forget: YOU CAN’T KILL SOMEONE JUST FOR WHAT HE SAYS, even if you don’t agree with it. The exaggerated reaction of the terrorists is an absolutely intolerable attitude. If we stop showing that satirical cartoon now and censor the satire that hit Islam, like hit everyone else, it would be an additional win for the terrorists, and we can’t allow this.

I’d like clarify something before to continue: when I say Islam, I don’t refer to the whole religion and all its followers, instead I refer to the extremists and fundamentalist parts of the religion that think they are doing good through evil, and the fanatics, who in the last decades were the cause of a lot of international violence.

Islam is a religion, and as such it has a really noble and fundamental function for people, especially in the way of spiritual guidance and help in civil cohabitation. But as long as the fundamentalists continue to use violence to express their positions, the satire will continue, rightly, to hit them. Let’s learn together to see satire, not as an offence, but as an instrument for change. We must show the cartoon, we must make our voices heard loudly, and we must continue to show the errors of politics and the problems of religions. Only like that will people finally be able to understand that we must act and we must do it now. Only like that will we be able to change the declining trend of our world.

Je Suis Charlie, Nous Sommes Charlie!

By Michele C., Italy
19 years old

Worship extremism... too much.

South America Group.
Week 10: “Je Suis Charlie.”

Worship extremism... too much.

Religious teaching is brainwash when it is not the reflection of your own personal image with God. Part of this individual responsibility is humbly following an ideal that has moral concepts that are infinitely greater than any individual. Religious Extremism that leads to such a violent terrorist act as the one that happened last week is what happens when an individual completely loses himself from reality. This loss of reality can get to the magnitude of being able to compromise the individual of his capability of even respecting the most elemental social responsibilities such as respecting liberty of expression and life. What a pity.

By Lucas Valle, Brazil
20 years old