it is a benefit of technology which helps students learn at their own pace.

Students can learn according to their abilities and needs.

Technology as the 21st-century skill is essential in order to be successful in this day and age.

Subject become more interesting with virtual lessons, through a videos.

Students can learn according to their abilities and needs.

Technology: friend or enemy?

Revealing personal data can lead to threats like identity theft, fraud, bullying, and blackmail. 1.Identity Theft Definition: Identity theft occurs when someone steals your personal information and uses it without your permission. This can include your name, Social Security number, or bank details. Example: If someone gets your Social Security number, they could open a credit card in your name and run up bills that you would have to pay. 2.Fraud Definition: Fraud is when someone deceives another person to gain something of value, like money or personal information. This is often done through lies or tricks. Example: A person might call you pretending to be from your bank and tell you that you need to confirm your account details. If you give them your information, they may steal your money. 3. Bullying Definition: Bullying is when someone repeatedly hurts, threatens, or picks on another person. This can happen in person or online (cyberbullying). Example: If someone sends hurtful messages or spreads rumors about you on social media, that’s a form of bullying. 4. Blackmail Definition: Blackmail is when someone threatens to reveal harmful or embarrassing information about you unless you give them something they want, usually money or favors. Example: If someone takes a private photo of you and threatens to share it unless you pay them, that’s blackmail. Summary Identity Theft: Stealing personal information for illegal use. Fraud: Deceiving someone for personal gain. Bullying: Repeatedly hurting or threatening someone. Blackmail: Threatening to expose information unless demands are met. Understanding these terms helps you recognize and protect yourself from potential dangers in both real life and online. If you see any signs of these actions happening, it’s important to talk to a trusted adult or authority figure. There are several guidelines for you to be aware of to keep your personal data confidential: •Have strong passwords set on any account that holds personal data. Stronger passwords include characters, numbers and symbols and are not a recognisable word. •Encrypt (scramble text so that it cannot be read without a decryption key) any personal data that you store on your computer. •Have a firewall present, scanning incoming and outgoing data from your computer system. firewall : a security measure that can be implemented to monitor traffic into and out of a computer and prevent external users gaining unauthorised access to a computer system. A firewall is a security measure that helps protect a computer system by monitoring and controlling the traffic that comes into and goes out of the system. Think of it as a barrier between your computer and the outside world. It prevents unauthorized users from accessing your computer while allowing authorized traffic to pass through. •Regularly scan your computer with preventative software, such as an anti-virus package, that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it. Anti-virus: software that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it •Make use of any biometric devices (devices that measures a person's biological data, such as thumbprints), that are built into technology. biometric devices: Unique physical characteristic of a person that can be used by a computer for identification purposes. https://www.aratek.co/news/biometric-devices-definition-and-examples Biometric devices are tools that use unique physical characteristics of a person for identification purposes. This means they can recognize who you are based on features that are unique to you. Here are some examples of biometric characteristics: Fingerprint Recognition, Facial Recognition, Voice Recognition •Only visit and provide data to websites that are a trusted source. •Do not open any email attachments from a sender you do not recognise. •Check the URL attached to any link requesting data to see if it is genuine. •Be cautious about any pictures or opinions that you post or send to people. •Remove data about your location that is normally attached to your photos and videos that you may post, such as geotags. Geotag: an electronic tag that assigns a geographical location A geotag is an electronic tag that assigns a specific geographical location to a piece of information, like a photo or a video. Geotags can help people understand where a photo was taken or where an event occurred, making it easier to organize and find information based on location. •Do not become friends on social networking sites with people you do not know. •Set all the privacy controls to the most secure setting that are available on social media accounts. •Report and block any suspicious user. •Use a nickname or pseudonym when using the internet for entertainment, for example, playing games. •If it is possible, use a virtual private network (VPN), an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network. Virtual private network (VPN) : an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a special way to connect to the internet that keeps your information safe. Imagine you are sending a secret message to a friend. You want to make sure no one else can read it while it travels. A VPN helps you do just that! It creates an encrypted connection, which means it turns your message into a code that only your friend can understand Example: Public Wi-Fi Safety: When you use public Wi-Fi, like in a café, your data can be easily accessed by hackers. If you connect to a VPN while using that public Wi-Fi, your data is encrypted, making it much harder for anyone to steal your information.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

TECH FREE! by Sam Winton Have you ever wondered what it would be like to give up technology? I'm a TV journalist and I spend a lot of my working life in front of a computer or a TV. I decided to conduct my own private experiment: I would spend a day trying to manage without technological devices. What a scary thought! The first thing I usually do every day is reach for my smartphone to check the time and read any messages or emails. But I'd locked it away in a drawer the night before. Already I was feeling very cut off from the world, and it was only... actually, I had no idea what time it was! After breakfast, I needed to get some cash. Inevitably, this meant a trip to the bank because cash points are technological devices. I had to queue, but I had a very nice conversation with a woman whilst I was waiting. Not surprisingly, the bank teller thought I was a bit strange withdrawing money this way. I think she thought I was a robber! Then it was on to the supermarket. You may be wondering what's technological about that. Well, I had to make sure I avoided the self-service check-out and joined the queue for a normal one - with a real person. Naturally, it took longer, but I had a great chat with the guy who served me, and he told me about a new club that is opening up nearby. Would I have found out about that if I'd gone to the self- service check-out? No. Afterwards, I came home to have a go at writing a news story by hand. Strangely, I found it easier to concentrate on my writing. But my hand and fingers got really sore! And I have to confess - by this stage, I was having to make a real effort not to get my phone out and check my messages. I was starting to wonder what my friends were doing. Maybe they were making plans to go to that new club, and I would never know! All in all, I wouldn't say I could live without technology. Predictably, I really missed my phone all day. The worst part was not being able to check updates in the news or from my friends. I felt very out of touch. However, I kept to my promise of a tech-free day and I did have more face-to-face interaction. Undoubtedly, it made me realise just how addicted to technology we all are.

5.1 Personal data Personal data is any data that relates to you and your identity. This includes data such as: •Name •Address •Telephone number •Email address •Bank details •Medical records •Salary •Political opinions You should be very careful about revealing any of your personal data! By revealing personal data to another, especially online, you are exposing yourself to dangers such as identity theft, fraud, bullying and blackmail. These types of dangers can be issues that arise as a result of revealing more personal thoughts and feelings to those that can use them against you. It is a more sinister viewpoint to take, but the moment you reveal any personal data to another, you are providing them with the potential to harm you or your identity. This isn't to say you should never speak to another, especially those unknown online, just understand how to recognise a danger and how to keep your identity secure. To keep yourself safe in your daily life, you are likely to have been taught to take measures such as locking doors, not talking to strangers and not venturing into unsafe areas. However, when many people go online, they relax their safety measures, perhaps because they are in the comfort of their own home, so do not think anything negative will happen. Many people that use the internet are genuine, but knowing how to detect the few that aren't is important. There are several guidelines for you to be aware of to keep your personal data confidential: •Have strong passwords set on any account that holds personal data. Stronger passwords include characters, numbers and symbols and are not a recognisable word. •Encrypt (scramble text so that it cannot be read without a decryption key) any personal data that you store on your computer. •Have a firewall present, scanning incoming and outgoing data from your computer system. •Regularly scan your computer with preventative software, such as an anti-virus package, that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it. •Make use of any biometric devices (devices that measures a person's biological data, such as thumbprints), that are built into technology. •Only visit and provide data to websites that are a trusted source. •Do not open any email attachments from a sender you do not recognise. •Check the URL attached to any link requesting data to see if it is genuine. •Be cautious about any pictures or opinions that you post or send to people. •Remove data about your location that is normally attached to your photos and videos that you may post, such as geotags. •Do not become friends on social networking sites with people you do not know. •Set all the privacy controls to the most secure setting that are available on social media accounts. •Report and block any suspicious user. •Use a nickname or pseudonym when using the internet for entertainment, for example, playing games. •If it is possible, use a virtual private network (VPN), an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network. The ways in which some of these guidelines can be used in more detail will be explored throughout this chapter.

Title: The Adventures of Max and the Magical Computer (Shortened Version) Once upon a time, in a small town called Techville, there lived a curious fourth-grader named Max. One day, while exploring his grandma’s attic, he found an old, dusty computer. As he cleaned it, the screen lit up, and a cheerful voice said, “Hello, Max! I’m Compy, your magical computer. Let’s learn about operating systems, files, and folders!” Max was thrilled. “A talking computer? Let’s go!” Chapter 1: The World of Windows Compy explained, “I run on Windows, the brain of the computer. It uses a Graphical User Interface (GUI), so you can interact with me using icons, menus, and buttons. Let’s start by changing my desktop background—the image on the screen.” Max chose a spaceship picture. “Cool! Can I add a screen saver too?” “Of course!” said Compy. “It’s an image that appears when I’m inactive. Try this swirling galaxy!” Max set the screen saver and giggled as it appeared. “This is fun!” Chapter 2: Organizing with Folders and Files Compy’s screen filled with random icons. “Oh no! My files are a mess. Can you help?” “Sure! What are files and folders?” asked Max. “A file is information, like a picture or document. Files have names, like ‘Homework.docx.’ The part after the dot, like .docx, is the file extension. It tells you the file type,” Compy explained. Max pointed to “Game.exe.” “So, this is a program file?” “Yes!” said Compy. “To organize, we use folders—like drawers for files. You can even put folders inside folders!” Max created a “School” folder, added his homework files, and made a “Projects” folder inside it. “Now everything’s neat!” Chapter 3: The File Explorer Adventure Compy’s screen flickered. “Some files are missing. Let’s use Windows Explorer to find them. It’s like a map for files and folders.” Max opened Windows Explorer and saw a tree-like list of folders. “This is like a tree with branches!” “Exactly!” said Compy. “Search for the missing files and move them to the right folders.” Max found the files in “Downloads” and moved them. “I feel like a computer detective!” Chapter 4: The Final Challenge Compy’s screen turned into a game board. “Time for a quiz! What’s the purpose of an operating system? How do you change the desktop background? What’s the difference between a file and a folder?” Max answered all the questions correctly, and fireworks lit up the screen. “Congratulations, Max! You’re a computer whiz!” The End Max smiled. “Thanks, Compy! I can’t wait to teach my friends!” Compy replied, “Remember, Max, learning is an adventure. Keep exploring!” As Max turned off the computer, he knew his journey into technology had just begun.

Technology

Related quizzes

Related quizzes