Presentations: Week 2

     I was entertained by week #2 DTC presentations as I was with week #1.  I learned a lot about video games and their affects on communities, real life combat training, and future inventions that will help mankind. 
     Katie's presentation on how low-income schools are receiving technology assistance to help bridge the digital divide was unique in the sense she has a varied template.  The template, along with help from a few classmates, seemed to me enough to help her build a very strong, supported argument and write a good paper for her topic.  We all know that the digital divide is starting to bridge together with newer technology and social aspects such as social networks and cellphones.  Those who give help to low-income schools certainly do their part in bridging the digital divide.  I feel Katie will have enough information to tie in with the digital divide to make this a great example of the digital divide.  I did not know that there was a Microsoft Community that helped low-income students and schools with newer technology such as computers and the related.  I think this is great and has been needed for many years.  Microsoft is doing their part to help bridge the digital divide.  I am very interested in seeing where all of this "divide bridging" leads to in regards to the before and after results in decades to come.  It seems like we, as a world and a pleathera of inventors, are bridging the digital divide faster with each new year.  We shall never close the digital divide completely, but we are rapidly turning a "Grand Canyon" divide into a "molehill" divide.  Low-income help with computers and technology is certainly a great and important leap to our future.
     Beau, in his "Gaming: The Final Frontier" presentation, brought up quite a few ideas I would probably have never thought of.  First of all, I did not realize in how many ways we are truly gamers.  When I have ever thought about gaming to this point, I only thought of video games on portable (PSP, Nintendo DS) and full-size (XBox, PS3, etc.) consoles and on computers.  I didn't realize it is still gaming if done on cellphones and other newer technology.  Also, I didn't know about the "Life or Death" video game.  That video was a good tie-in to his argument (as Julie suggested) and topic, because it shows how technology (surgery, etc.) is being put into video games.  Much new technology, such as the Da Vinci 3DHD, I believe, is created in part by gamers that really know computers and know how to manipulate ideas and movements with computers in video games.  These video game players project their skills into ideas for useful and often life-saving technology.   The "Life or Death" game also defends video games as being good, useful activities in themselves. I thought a key element of Beau's argument is how internet speeds become faster partly due to the popularity of online video games and the need for more speed and less lag time.  I, too, have read most of "Growing Up Digital" and believe it is a very good source for this topic, Beau!  There are very good sections about the influence of video games and how some very useful and popular technology has been influenced by video games and gaming communities.  That book would be very supportive of your well-defined and original argument of how technology feeds off the gaming community.
     James has a very interesting and informative topic and argument.  I believe possibly all teachers, child tutors, and parents of small children can benefit greatly from his information.  I believe, as James does, that parents should really get involved in playing video games with their young children.  They should, while playing the games with their children, teach them the various learning principles (thanks to Gee) so as to make sure their child picks most or all of those principles up while they are growing up.  Parents and the like need to see exactly what and how their children are learning from video games.  This does help parents to accept  the many hours of playing time that some of their kids use instead of playing outside or working on school work.  Most parents would accept video games more and realize that their child is not just "wasting time".  I really liked James' discussion about the symbolism in games.  This is truly important that children pick up these symbols in games.  His argument about symbolism in games and how it creates a better understanding of learning really sums up his information.  This symbolism can include, but should not be limited to, an understanding of what the mind undergoes while playing video games and 2D versus 3D space.  His argument and the discussion of how children pick up symbols in video games and how it becomes culture is a good backbone to a good, informative paper that can teach parents and teachers alike how to teach their children to grow up with a strong academic sense.
     I thought Hans' presentation on "Social Networks Bridging the Chasm" really hit the nail on the head about social networks and their connection of the gaps of the digital divide.  His strong point is certainly about simple access to social networks and the 3 C's; connection, content, and create.  Hans explained each of the 3 C's very thoroughly and how they relate to social networks and their impact to bring people all over the world together.  I thought his explanation of how poor kids and adults all over the world are becoming more technology literate just by connecting to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks.  This information on social networks, as Hans mentions, helps create more technology literate people to help, albeit not in a very major way, bridge the digital divide.  As for Hans' argument, I believe he should go with the Creator-Commentors-Ingestors pyramid (as Julie demonstrated very clearly and poignantly).  The pyramid works very well to support what Hans discusses.  The pyramid will allow Hans to explain how social network users are becoming more literate and confident on these social networks due to all the fun you can have on them and connections you can make.  This allows them the ability to get involved more in the social networks and the Internet and not just sit back and "ingest" information.  Users from around the world, as they develop more confidence and computer literacy, are inventing apps for the social networks, or at least leaving comments and emails for others.  The days of the "sit-back-and-watch-because-I-don't-know-computers" mentality is coming to an end with much thanks to social networks and their popularity around the world. 
     Spencer's topic is one that I would have never thought of.  In his "Do Video Games Generate Better Soldiers?" presentation, Spencer surprised me by siding on the negative issues of video game combat training.  I possibly would have thought of this topic, but I would have discussed the positive aspects of video game training for soldiers.  His argument about the negative effects of video game combat training is original and welcomed.  I thought Spencer had a very effective argument in that video game training for combat missions fails in comparison to actual combat training.  He has plenty of support for his argument.  He did list pros to video game combat training over real life training, which he might not want to focus on much at all, since this is about the negative side of video game training.  I thought the most important negative of using video games for training is that soldiers miss out on the physical aspect and true mind set that real soldiers in combat face.  That aspect is very good support for his argument being made.  He should expand on that con a little more if possible.  I really liked his before and after combat reasons against video game combat training.  Spencer's explanation of how soldiers who have seen real action tend to have nightmares if performing combat training after real fighting was, at the very least, eye-opening and also very supportive of his argument.  One thought I had throughout the entire presentation was how this is a great topic for the real vs. virtual space link.  Their are some similarities in real vs. virtual combat training, but primarily vast differences.  The results of the real vs. virtual space training here can yield very distinct results in the way of effect on the soldier, his future, and how successful he is in true combat.  Spencer was able to successfully separate the real and virtual space combat training aspects, as well as tie them together.  Spencer needs to keep his argument strong and expand on his argument's support throughout his entire paper, and provide a great conclusion that basically leaves no doubts about how real combat training is more effective and safer than video game combat.