<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>SFB789 AESa by </title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3</link>
      <description>Synthesised summary</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2018-10-08 09:05:06 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2025-11-04 17:44:59 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Joshua</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/357978505</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>With the rapid advancement of technology, the education sector is evolving with it; textbooks are being phased out with tablets and e-readers being the replacement. This convenience comes at a high cost of an increased risk of misuse of technology. Meakes (2015) states that since 2010, the number of cheating incidents in national examinations in the United States has gone up by 40%, with 80% accredited to abuse of tablets, e-readers and smartphones. Gasser &amp; Palfrey (2009) also suggest that tablets distract students from studying with the wide availability of applications for entertainment. Both of these sources highlight the negative effects of using tablets and e-readers for education. Thus it might be possible to suggest that tablets and e-readers should not become commonplace in school education, until regulation of use is able to be enforced.<br><br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2019-05-08 10:44:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/357978505</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Eddy and Kai</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/357980452</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div> </div><div>First of all, students should not use electronic devices during class as it has a negative effect on student’s academic performance. Both of these sources appear to support that using electronic devices in class is detrimental to student’s academic performance, since they are being distracted and could not pay attention in class (Gasser and Palfrey, 2009; Grove, 2017). This would indicate that students should not use electronic devices in class, and instead using paper and pen would be less distracting to the students. Furthermore, research by Grove (2017) indicates that students that uses laptop during class tend to achieve lower academic performance compared to students who do not use electronic devices in class. This further highlights the detrimental effect of using electronic devices in class on student’s academic performance. In addition, modern technology had aided students to cheat in exams and school work. Burkeley (2017) and Elmasry (2017) both suggests that modern technology has allowed students to cheat in exams using specialised technology such as Bluetooth phone that gives out answer, and students can share as well as copy other’s work by using the internet. This shows that modern technology has allowed students to cheat in exams and plagiarised other’s work easily. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2019-05-08 10:51:36 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/357980452</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Kevan</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/358514850</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>There is good evidence that globalisation has resulted in a considerable increase in world trade over the past 20-30 years. Multi-national companies have beneﬁted from the lenience of the import tariff system, as suggested by Brokaw (2018), companies are now allowed tooperate more freely in markets such as India which had just been liberalised. Companies seem to protect the agenda of globalisation as they believe that to compete with their rivals, it is essential to understand global markets and regional differences. Costa (2018) argues the paradox that the “free movement of services, goods, people and ideas worldwide” leads to an expectation that the GDP being 15 per cent in 1990 is to reach 30 per cent by 2020. However, besides the GDP statistics, it may be that ordinary people are suffering in this paradox. To provide evidence for this dilemma, Lin (2016) points out “that per-capita income in the 20 poorest countries has hardly changed in the past 40 years, while in the richest 20 it has tripled”. Furthermore, there may be allegations of corruption or inequality in global trade as the western countries do not import agricultural goods from developing countries and although there is free trade of goods and investment, richer countries are sceptical of immigrants from poor countries (Lin, 2016).</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2019-05-09 15:03:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/358514850</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Eddy and Ferris</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/358524118</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>There is good evidence that globalisation has resulted in a considerable increase in world trade over the past 20-30 years, which has mainly benefited multinational companies instead of ordinary people.  Lin (2016) puts forward the view that globalization leads to the deterioration of the poorest countries' economy. By indicating the fact that in the past 40 years the income of 20 poorest countries has hardly increased, while the income of the richest countries tripled.  Brokaw (2018) indicates that globalisation has reduced import tariffs around the world and has benefited Multinational companies. Since, these companies will be able to expand into new markets with fewer trade barriers which will reduce the cost of expansion. Furthermore, globalisation encourages outsourcing of manufacturing to countries that provide cheap labour only benefits multinational companies (Costa, 2018). This shows that ordinary people do not benefit from outsourcing, because people in developed country will lose jobs and the means to feed their family. Overall, globalisation benefit multinational companies rather than the ordinary people .</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2019-05-09 15:19:13 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/358524118</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>haareb &amp; Taha </title>
         <author>tahahussain2906</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/358528922</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>GLobalitsation is good for rich countries because they benefit cheap production but poor countries remain the same (poor). To put into perspective the fact that multinational companies benefit significantly in comparison to the ordinary people. Furthermore, they attain cheap labour which boost sales and may reduce cost. Although, outsourcing does create a better economic standpoint for the country. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2019-05-09 15:26:36 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/nabor_a_riquelme/9p2bdgmmwah3/wish/358528922</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
