Resención the movie pay it forward

Task 4:

Movie Review

Pay It Forward (2000)

FILM REVIEW; What Goes Around Comes Around? Doing Good Deeds in a Bad World

By A. O. SCOTT

Published: October 20, 2000

The title of ''Pay It Forward'' refers to an idea dreamed up by a seventh grader named Trevor McKinney who lives with his mother, a waitress struggling to stay on the wagon, in a modest ranch-style house on the edge of Las Vegas. Trevor's social studies teacher, Mr. Simonet, a sarcastic fellow with a badly scarred face and an impressive vocabulary, has given his class a yearlong extra-credit assignment: to think of something that will change the world and to put it into action.
Trevor (Haley Joel Osment) concocts a system of expanding generosity that he graphs in his spiral notebook and on the classroom blackboard. He will do a good turn for three people, each of whom will in turn do good to three more, and so on. Mr. Simonet (Kevin Spacey) mocks him gently, suggesting that the project may be a bit utopian. (''Look it up,'' he instructs his puzzled pupils). ''What's wrong with that?'' young Trevor replies.
The concept has a beguiling simplicity, and the movie's thesis is that the rippling out of what a popular bumper sticker calls ''random, senseless acts of kindness'' might tip the world's moral balance and make it a better place. (A real foundation has been set up to foster the spirit of Trevor's project, which in the film spawns a movement)[...]


PAY IT FORWARD
Directed by Mimi Leder; written by Leslie Dixon, based on the novel by Catherine Ryan Hyde; director of photography, Oliver Stapleton; edited by David Rosenbloom; music by Thomas Newman; production designer, Leslie Dilley; produced by Peter Abrams, Robert Levy and Steven Reuther; released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Running time: 155 minutes. This film is rated PG-13.

WITH: Kevin Spacey (Eugene Simonet), Helen Hunt (Arlene McKinney), Haley Joel Osment (Trevor McKinney), Jay Mohr (Chris Chandler), James Caviezel (Jerry), Jon Bon Jovi (Ricki) and Angie Dickinson (Grace).

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/214072/Pay-It-Forward/overview

Utilizamos un fragmento de una recensión.
Fecha: 13/10/2014

Criterios de evaluación:   

•     Recursos visuales utilizados que complementen el tema seleccionado de forma atrayente logrando el interés.

•     Pertinencia del recurso como representación del tema presentado.

•     Evaluaremos si las preguntas elaboradas se vinculan con el texto, y sí las mismas son relevantes.

HUMAN GENOME

New Goals for the U.S.

 Human Genome Project: 1998-2003

Francis S. Collins*,
Ari P

 Francis S, Collins, Ari Patrinos, Elke Jordan, 

Aravinda Chakravarti, 

Raymond Gesteland, 

LeRoy Walters, 

the members of the DOE and NIH planning groups

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is fulfilling its promise as the single most important project in biology and the biomedical sciences—one that will permanently change biology and medicine. With the recent completion of the genome sequences of several microorganisms, including Escherichia coli andSaccharomyces cerevisiae, and the imminent completion of the sequence of the metazoan Caenorhabditis elegans, the door has opened wide on the era of whole genome science. The ability to analyze entire genomes is accelerating gene discovery and revolutionizing the breadth and depth of biological questions that can be addressed in model organisms. These exciting successes confirm the view that acquisition of a comprehensive, high-quality human genome sequence will have unprecedented impact and long-lasting value for basic biology, biomedical research, biotechnology, and health care. The transition to sequence-based biology will spur continued progress in understanding gene-environment interactions and in development of highly accurate DNA-based medical diagnostics and therapeutics.

Human DNA sequencing, the flagship endeavor of the HGP, is entering its decisive phase. It will be the project's central focus during the next 5 years. While partial subsets of the DNA sequence, such as expressed sequence tags (ESTs), have proven enormously valuable, experience with simpler organisms confirms that there can be no substitute for the complete genome sequence. In order to move vigorously toward this goal, the crucial task ahead is building sustainable capacity for producing publicly available DNA sequence. The full and incisive use of the human sequence, including comparisons to other vertebrate genomes, will require further increases in sustainable capacity at high accuracy and lower costs. Thus, a high-priority commitment to develop and deploy new and improved sequencing technologies must also be made.

Availability of the human genome sequence presents unique scientific opportunities, chief among them the study of natural genetic variation in humans. Genetic or DNA sequence variation is the fundamental raw material for evolution. Importantly, it is also the basis for variations in risk among individuals for numerous medically important, genetically complex human diseases. An understanding of the relationship between genetic variation and disease risk promises to change significantly the future prevention and treatment of illness. The new focus on genetic variation, as well as other applications of the human genome sequence, raises additional ethical, legal, and social issues that need to be anticipated, considered, and resolved.

The HGP has made genome research a central underpinning of biomedical research. It is essential that it continue to play a lead role in catalyzing large-scale studies of the structure and function of genes, particularly in functional analysis of the genome as a whole. However, full implementation of such methods is a much broader challenge and will ultimately be the responsibility of the entire biomedical research and funding communities.

Success of the HGP critically depends on bioinformatics and computational biology as well as training of scientists to be skilled in the genome sciences. The project must continue a strong commitment to support of these areas.

As intended, the HGP has become a truly international effort to understand the structure and function of the human genome. Many countries are participating according to their specific interests and capabilities. Coordination is informal and generally effected at the scientist-to-scientist level. The U.S. component of the project is sponsored by the 

National

 Human Genome Research Institute at the

National

 Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the Department of Energy (DOE). The HGP has benefited greatly from the contributions of its international partners. The private sector has also provided critical assistance. These collaborations will continue, and many will expand. Both NIH and DOE welcome participation of all interested parties in the accomplishment of the HGP's ultimate purpose, which is to develop and make publicly available to the international community the genomic resources that will expedite research to improve the lives of all people.

The Planning Process

The last 5-year plan for the HGP, published jointly by NIH and DOE in 1993 (1), covered fiscal years 1994 through 1998. The current plan is again a joint effort and will guide the project for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

The goals described below have resulted from a comprehensive planning and assessment process that has taken place over the past year in both agencies. Each agency identified a group of advisors to oversee its process, and eight workshops were held to address specific areas of the plan. A large number of scientists and scholars as well as public representatives participated in these events, including many who had no historical ties to the HGP. Comments were also sought from an extensive list of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. A draft of the goals was presented for evaluation at a public meeting in May 1998. Suggestions and comments from that meeting were incorporated into the plan. Finally, the new goals were reviewed and approved by the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research at NIH and the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee at DOE. Summaries of the workshops that contributed to this plan are available atwww.nhgri.nih.govand www.ornl.gov/hg5yp

Specific Goals for 1998–2003

The following sections outline eight major goals for the HGP over the next 5 years. Table 1 provides an overview of the quantifiable features of these new goals and compares them to the goals from 1993. Information on accomplishment of the 1993 goals is also included. Figure 1describes the funding the U.S. HGP received to date.(...)

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. ↵
   
   

   1. F. Collins, 
   2. D. Galas

   , Science 262, 43 (1993).

   
   

   FREE Full Text
2. ↵
   
   

   1. J. D. Watson, 
   2. F. H. C. Crick

   , Nature 171, 737 (1953).

   
   

   CrossRefMedlineGoogle Scholar
3. ↵
   
   

   The finished genome sequence refers to the portion of human DNA that can be stably cloned and sequenced by current technology. The small proportion of highly repeated sequence represented by the centromeres and other constitutive heterochromatic regions of the genome may not be finished by 2003. In addition, it is possible that a small fraction of other parts of the genome may present unanticipated and serious challenges. Such regions are expected to be rare.
4. ↵
   
   

   1. J. C. Venter
   2. et al.

   , Science 280, 1540 (1998);

   
   

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
   . A whole-genome shotgun strategy has been proposed previously [J. Weber and E. W. Myers, Genome Res. 7, 401, but major concerns have been raised (P. Green, ibid., p. 410), about the difficulties expected in obtaining correct long-range contig assemblies. It will not be possible to evaluate the feasibility, impact, or quality of the product of this approach until more data are available, which is not estimated to occur for about 12 to 18 months. See also
   1. R. Waterston, 
   2. J. E. Sulston

   , Science 287, 53 (1998).

   
   

   Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
5. ↵
   
   

   1. D. R. Bentley

   , Science 274, 533 (1996).

   
   

   FREE Full Text
6. ↵
   
   

   1. M. Guyer
   2. et al.

   , Genome Res. 8, 413 (1998).

   
   

   FREE Full Text
7. The members of the planning groups are: NIH scientific planning subcommittee–Aravinda Chakravarti, chair, Eric Fearon, Lee Hartwell, Charles H. Langley, Richard A. Mathies, Maynard Olson, Anthony J. Pawson, Thomas Pollard, Alan Williamson, Barbara Wold; DOE planning subcommittee–Raymond Gesteland, chair, Kenneth Buetow, Elbert Branscomb, Mario Capecchi, George Church, Harold Garner, Richard A. Gibbs, Trevor Hawkins, Keith Hodgson, Michael Knotek, Miriam Meisler, Gerald M. Rubin, Lloyd M. Smith, Randall F. Smith, Monty Westerfield; NIH-DOE ELSI Research Planning and Evaluation Group–LeRoy Walters, chair, Ellen Wright Clayton, Nancy L. Fisher, Caryn E. Lerman, Joseph D. McInerney, William Nebo, Nancy Press, David Valle. The members of these groups have contributed substantially to this plan but have not necessarily approved every word in it. In addition to the authors, this plan represents the combined efforts of a large number of consultants, including all the participants in the numerous workshops that were conducted as part of the planning process. We are deeply indebted to them for the time and expertise they contributed so generously to this effort.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5389/682.full  
30/09/2014

Task 3

      Tres afirmaciones que sé sobre el texto:

A fines de la década del 80 y principios del 90 se comienza con este proyecto que implica conocer más sobre la información contenida en nuestros genes, en particular patologías genéticas.

Conociendo el mapa genético humano se conoce todo sobre la vida biológica de los individuos, su familia y antecesores.

Luego de ser descubierto se dieron grandes discusiones vinculadas a lo Bioético, que atraviesa lo moral sobre este conocimiento.

      Tres preguntas genuinas…

¿Qué implica en profundidad el genoma humano?

¿Quiénes realizan este estudio y a quiénes se les puede realizar?

¿Cuál es la normativa que lo ampara a los individuos que pueden ser expuestos a este estudio?

Task 1: Reasons / Purposes to read

What is Cloning?

Clones are organisms that are exact genetic copies. Every single bit of their DNA is identical.

Clones can happen naturally—identical twins are just one of many examples. Or they can be made in the lab. Below, find out how natural identical twins are similar to and different from clones made through modern cloning technologies.

---

How Is Cloning Done?

Many people first heard of cloning when Dolly the Sheep showed up on the scene in 1997. Artificial cloning technologies have been around for much longer than Dolly, though.

There are two ways to make an exact genetic copy of an organism in a lab: artificial embryo twinning and somatic cell nuclear transfer.

1. Artificial Embryo Twinning

Artificial embryo twinning is a relatively low-tech way to make clones. As the name suggests, this technique mimics the natural process that creates identical twins.

In nature, twins form very early in development when the embryo splits in two. Twinning happens in the first days after egg and sperm join, while the embryo is made of just a small number of unspecialized cells. Each half of the embryo continues dividing on its own, ultimately developing into separate, complete individuals. Since they developed from the same fertilized egg, the resulting individuals are genetically identical.

Artificial embryo twinning uses the same approach, but it is carried out in a Petri dish instead of inside the mother. A very early embryo is separated into individual cells, which are allowed to divide and develop for a short time in the Petri dish. The embryos are then placed into a surrogate mother, where they finish developing. Again, since all the embryos came from the same fertilized egg, they are genetically identical.

2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also called nuclear transfer, uses a different approach than artificial embryo twinning, but it produces the same result: an exact genetic copy, or clone, of an individual. This was the method used to create Dolly the Sheep.

What does SCNT mean? Let's take it apart:

Somatic cell: A somatic cell is any cell in the body other than sperm and egg, the two types of reproductive cells. Reproductive cells are also called germ cells. In mammals, every somatic cell has two complete sets of chromosomes, whereas the germ cells have only one complete set.

Nuclear: The nucleus is a compartment that holds the cell's DNA. The DNA is divided into packages called chromosomes, and it contains all the information needed to form an organism. It's small differences in our DNA that make each of us unique.

Transfer: Moving an object from one place to another. To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from an adult female sheep. Next they removed the nucleus and all of its DNA from an egg cell. Then they transferred the nucleusfrom the somatic cell to the egg cell. After a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus, was behaving just like a freshly fertilized egg. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted into a surrogate mother and carried to term. (The transfer step is most often done using an electrical current to fuse the membranes of the egg and the somatic cell.)

The lamb, Dolly, was an exact genetic replica of the adult female sheep that donated the somatic cell. She was the first-ever mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.

How does SCNT differ from the natural way of making an embryo?

Natural fertilization, where egg and sperm join, and SCNT both make the same thing: a dividing ball of cells, called an embryo. So what exactly is the difference between the two?

An embryo's cells all have two complete sets of chromosomes. The difference between fertilization and SCNT lies in where those two sets come from.

In fertilization, the sperm and egg have one set of chromosomes each. When the sperm and egg join, they grow into an embryo with two sets—one from the father's sperm and one from the mother's egg.

In SCNT, the egg cell's single set of chromosomes is removed. It is replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes. So, in the resulting embryo, both sets of chromosomes come from the somatic cell.

---

Is cloning an organism the same as cloning a gene?

You may have heard about researchers cloning, or identifying, genes that are responsible for various medical conditions or traits. What's the difference?

When scientists clone an organism, they are making an exact genetic copy of the whole organism, as described above.

When scientists clone a gene, they isolate and make exact copies of just one of an organism's genes. Cloning a gene usually involves copying the DNA sequence of that gene into a smaller, more easily manipulated piece of DNA, such as a plasmid. This process makes it easier to study the function of the individual gene in the laboratory.

AUTOR: Supported by a Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) Grant No. R25RR016291 from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the NIH. The contents provided here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIH.

DIRECCIÓN WEB: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whatiscloning/ (20/08/2014)

KNOW	WANT TO KNOW	LEARNING
A partir de ella se obtienen seres idénticos genéticamente (morfología y ADN).           Se realiza a partir de la célula del ser vivo  que se quiere clonar.           No es legal en humanos.            Se experimenta con animales, de ello es ejemplo la oveja Dolly.           Este primer caso de clonación animal ya murió.            Sería venturoso para el futuro su utilización para reproducir células madres, las cuáles servirían para curar enfermedades.	Procedimientos para llevar adelante una clonación.             Explicación de cómo se replica el ADN.            Cómo se podría lograr curar enfermedades, cuáles y cuál sería su costo y viabilidad.            Qué intereses hay por detrás que impedirían estos avances.             Cuáles fueron las consecuencias negativas si las hay de la clonación.              Existen células madres congeladas de alguien.             Cuáles son los peligros.             Cuáles son los debates éticos sobre el tema.

TASK 2: CONNECTISM.

KNOW	WANT TO KNOW	LEARNED
·         Sabemos que es una nueva teoría del aprendizaje	·         ¿Cómo surge esta teoría? ·         ¿En qué contexto socio-histórico? ·         ¿En qué época? ·         ¿Quiénes son los impulsores de esta corriente? ·         ¿Cuál es la base de la misma y sus fundamentos? ·         ¿Qué paradigma sustenta el Conectivismo?	·         Es una teoría que considera a la tecnología como el nexo entre el alumno y el aprendizaje. ·         Contiene ocho principios básicos que la caracterizan. ·         El texto también nos  aporta una visión desde la experiencia. ·         El texto nos aporta una imagen donde se visualiza el Conectivimo a través de todas las interconexiones sociales (hogar, escuela, comunidad, mundo). ·         Otro punto relevante que queremos resaltar con respecto a ésta teoría es que no favorece la socialización del niño en general.  Señala a las aulas y docentes como obsoletos…

1)

TEXTO A

Learning for Life


A middle school teacher's thoughts about teaching and learning…

Skip to content

← Some Thoughts on Reverse Instruction and Game-Based Learning

Learning with Laptops in Middle School →

Posted on May 18, 2012

Connectivism and Global Collaboration in Education

Connectivism, introduced in the mid 2000’s, is an idea based on the premise that knowledge exits within systems and is acquired by individuals who interact collaboratively within activities related to that knowledge.  Whether you view connectivism as a learning theory or a “pedagogical view”, the movement has significant connections to behaviorism,congnitivism, and constructivism.  Marcy Perkins Discroll, in her book, Psychology of Learning for Instruction, defines learning as “a persisting change in human performance or performance potential…[which] must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world.”   Connectivism embodies this definition within it’s core principles.

According to Wikipedia, the eight core principles of connectivisim are:

• ·         Learning and knowledge rest in differences of opinions.
• ·         Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• ·         Learning may reside in non-human technology.
• ·         Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• ·         Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continuous learning.
• ·         Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a necessary skill.
• ·         Knowledge that is current is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• ·         Decision-making is itself a learning process.

Connectivism is not really a new idea, but new technology has given us ways to “connect” or “interact” faster and more easily.  Approaches to teaching and learning are changing as a result.  Project-based learning and challenged-based learning are two examples.  Another example, theFlat Classroom, founded by Vicky Davis and Julie Lindsay, springs from a constructivist approach in which the key component is “lowering the wall” of the classroom through technology so that students are joined virtually to create a more expansive, collaborative learning environment.  

From a social studies teacher’s perspective, the benefits of this type of global collaboration for my students are immediately evident:

• ·         Authenticity of learning – activities are engaging and real-world
• ·         Abundance of sources – almost limitless human resources including primary sources
• ·         Interaction within a global community – the world becomes smaller
• ·         Access – opportunity to explore and learn about different cultures first hand

The following infographic, in my opinion, is a good representation of the concept.  The words active, relevant, real-world, effective, hands-on, networked, innovative, personal, and transformative are all apt descriptors.  An additional word could be added to the “openly networked” heading to read:  “connected learning environments link learning in home, school, community, and the world.”

http://connectedlearning.tv/infographic   

Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Unported

My first project for Course 1 of CoETaIL is a collaborative blog unit that focuses on culture and digital citizenship.  It begins as a collaborative class activity and then expands into collaboration on a larger scale.  The “tweet” of  it’s description would be:  ”a project that allows student teams opportunities for research, creativity, and collaboration with students from around the world.”  This will be our first project-based activity in the next school year and I’m excited to implement this new unit.  Due to its relevance, I’m reposting the unit plan here.

A final thought about connectivisim and global collaboration leads me back to the Education Week article, The Classroom Is Obsolete:  It’s Time For Something New.  According to the author, Prakash Nair, it is an established scientific fact that the current model of the classroom is obsolete.   The author goes on to state the following elements that successful learning environments must have in order to prepare students for success in the 21st century:

• ·         Personalized
• ·         Safe and Secure
• ·         Inquiry-Based
• ·         Student-Directed
• ·         Collaborative
• ·         Interdisciplinary
• ·         Rigorous and hands-on
• ·         Embodying a culture of excellence and high expectations
• ·         Environmentally conscious
• ·         Connections to local community and businesses
• ·         Globally networked
• ·         Setting the stage for life-long learning

I feel lucky to be able to work in an educational environment that is moving in this direction.  A one-to-one laptop environment has availed numerous opportunities and resources to my students that were not as readily available before.  They are “connected” to the world in an instant.  Some teachers worry that technology will make their jobs obsolete.  I disagree.  In good schools, teachers are working carefully to engineer effective and appropriate learning opportunities that incorporate many of the 21st century educational elements listed above.  “Change is good.”  Though cliché, this is a true statement.  Unfortunately, change is often hindered by lack of financial resources including those earmarked for technology and professional development.  Nonetheless, as Nair points out, good teachers are putting forth their best efforts everyday to overcome the “limitations” of the traditional classroom-based schools.  Empowering our students to connect, interact, and collaborate is empowering them for success.

References:

1)      Jump up^ Fry, Heather; Steve Kerridge; Stephanie Marshall (2003).Understanding Student Learning. Routledge Falmer. p. 21.ISBN 9780415434645.

2)      Jump up^ Griffiths, Tony; David Guile (2003). "A Connective Model of Learning: the implications for work process knowledge". European Educational Research Journal 2 (1): 56–73.

3)      Jump up^ Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 2 No. 1, Jan 2005.

4)      Jump up^ Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation, Learning Circuits, November 2005.

5)      ^ Jump up to:a b Downes, Stephen. "What Connectivism Is". Retrieved 05/03/2013.

6)      Jump up^ Siemens, George; Stephen Downes. "Connectivism and Connective Knowledge". Retrieved 2009-01-28.

7)      Jump up^ Siemens, George. "MOOC or Mega-Connectivism Course". Retrieved 2009-01-28.

8)      Jump up^ "Online Connectivism Conference". Retrieved 05/03/2013.

9)      Jump up^ Connectivism: a new learning theory?, Pløn Verhagen (University of Twente), November 2006.

10)   Jump up^ which radical discontinuity?, Bill Kerr, February 2007

11)   Jump up^ Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?Rita Kop, Adrian Hill. In "The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 9, No 3 (2008), ISSN: 1492-3831"

12)   Jump up^ Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning, Mohamed Ally. In The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, Terry Anderson, Ed., May 2008.

(Referencias  extraídas del enlace con Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism).

TEXTO B

http://www.connectivism.ca/about.html

CONVALIDATING INFORMATION 

2)

TEXTO A

TEXTO B

Es un texto que presenta a la Teoría en base a una experiencia práctica.            Aportes gráficos que complementan la información.            El texto presentado es subjetivo por el motivo que mencionamos al comienzo.            Ambos textos presentan claramente la desvinculación entre sujetos a la hora de aprender, siendo la tecnología el único mediador entre el educando y el aprendizaje, así como también entre los demás vínculos sociales.

Si bien este texto nos brinda información clara y concreta sobre la teoría, el mismo no posee sustento científico. No nos informa sobre el autor, su contexto social o histórico.            Señala como relevante el uso de la tecnología dejando de lado la socialización del educando, dejando de lado la construcción de subjetividades del alumno.            No es claro el rol del docente. De acuerdo con lo explicitado en el texto se puede inferir que la  función del docente  como tal, podría en un futuro cercano ser inexistente.