Monday, November 2, 2015

Two different ways of presenting a new assessment method: S. Guilana's video vs my own presentation

The approach of this presentation varies in many different aspects from the one I prepared. In first place, it is much more impressionistic than mine, as it provides only the main ideas related to what a portfolio is and its advantages in today's world. On the contrary, the one I prepared contains thorough information about what a portfolio is, how it was supposed to be done, and how it would be assessed. In this regard, I believe that S. Guilanas's presentation is much more effective and attention-grabbing than mine, but that it needs to be complemented with further detail and instruction.
It also presents the ideas in a very different way in terms of organization an order. On the one hand, Guliana's presentation begins with an allusion to today's digital ways of communicating, and points out that technology has been changing rapidly in the past few years. After that, she asks if the same is true for education. Having set this technological environment and made students wonder whether their educational system is updated, she presents portfolios as a new tool and highlights their advantages. At this point, examples of portfolios are shown, and then what it consists of is explained. On the other hand, my presentation shows a more logical structure which, however, does not seem to be as effective. I started by clarifying what a portfolio is, and then proceeded to how students were supposed to make their own, the parts it will have, its purpose, and how it was going to be assessed.
But not only structure has an impact on the effect the presentation creates on the person who is watching it; language is used in particular way so as to be more engaging. The presentation is short and straight to the point, and the discourse is articulated by means of questions, which students would probably try to answer themselves in anticipation, and make them feel more interested about what would come next. At the end of the presentation we find another instance of the use of questions to make students feel more enthusiastic: "ready for 21st century learning?”. It should also be noted that, although language is used very effectively, the use of images helps conveying the message, as it complements the little amount of text provided. On the contrary, my presentation includes detailed information in a bullet point format, and attaches little importance, if any, to images.

An updated education system for Didital Natives

The current education system has been criticized by some experts in the past few years, especially regarding the drop of interest of today's students in school. Both Ken Robinson (2008) and Marc Prensky (2001a, 2001b) agree upon the fact that this lack of interest may stem from an inappropriate education system for today's learners. Both authors propose a change in the way students should be taught by making use of a simple and clear language which is in accordance with the renewed ways of teaching they postulate.
Robinson (2008) points out that today's system is based on an old model which dates back to the Enlightenment and which is modelled by the interests of industrialization. He also claims that children nowadays show a greater interest in digital entertainment (such as videogames, cellphones or television) than in education, and blames their lack of interest on the structure of the model. This model seems to work against divergent thinking, that is to say the ability to come up with multiple answers to a single problem, as children seem to lose this ability as they are educated and taught there is only one answer to each question/problem. Standardized testing embodies a clear example of this thinking.
Similarly, Prensky (2001a, 2001b) criticizes an education system which in his opinion is old-fashioned and unsuitable for today's children. He refers to them as "Digital Natives” (2001a: 2), as they have been raised as "”native speakers” of the digital language of computers”, videogames and the internet” (2001a: 3); as opposed to "Digital Immigrants”, those who became familiar to this "language” later in life. According to Prensky, the problem of education is closely related to the fact that the so-called Digital Immigrants are the ones in charge of teaching Digital Natives - today's children - with  the  "same methods  that  worked  for  the  teachers  when  they  were students” assuming that they "will  work  for  their  students  now”. As a solution to this problem, Prensky proposes using videogames to teach students in a way they would understand "the language” in which they are being taught, as well as to be more engaged in the learning (2001a, 2001b).
Although it is true that the current education system has its flaws and needs to be updated, we should not base learning on videogames; these might be a good exercise to complement learning and motivate students, but learners should also develop other abilities and ways of thinking. What Prensky refers to as the "language” of Digital Natives should not be the only language they speak. Students ideal education should not be virtual - which would detach them from reality -, but human, unless we aim to have cyborgs instead of people in the nearby future. Furthermore, Prensky does not seem to value the role teachers play in education, not only by lecturing, but also by correcting and monitoring students' progress in a humane and close way technology cannot offer.
It seem, though, that today's system fails to motivate students; the current model does not classify students' according to their interests and abilities, but merely by age, as Robinson points out. Although a common background of basic knowledge seems to be necessary for every child, a more personalized learning - which would match their abilities and difficulties as well as their aspirations and interests - may bring about more successful students. Every individual has his/her own learning pace in different areas of knowledge and abilities in the same way they are more or less talented in some disciplines than in others. Therefore, being assessed under the same criteria does not seem fair to all students, especially regarding the fact that certain abilities - such as creativity, musical talent and manual skills - are not given the same importance or prestige as sciences and languages are.  A successful system needs, as well as a proper distribution of groups and subjects and fair assessment of students, effective methods, which are designed by educators. Methods, of course should be updated. However, in such a fast-changing society as it is that of today, adapting the system will not be an easy work.
All in all, both Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and Robinson (2008) seem to coincide in the following idea; education has become old-fashioned and does not suit all of today's student's needs and interests. However, we should not attempt to solve such a complex matter with simplistic solutions, such as it is the case of teaching by means of videogames, as we would probably be leaving out many important issues that need to be addressed. On the contrary, a successful solution should include making structural changes - probably in terms of methodology but also in terms of organization of students and modules - that boosted students' motivation, and guaranteed the integrity of their human qualities and values.

References:
Prensky, Marc (2001a): "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1", On the Horizon, Vol. 9 Iss: 5: 1 - 6.
Prensky, Marc (2001b): "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently?", On the Horizon, Vol. 9 Iss: 6, pp.1 - 6
Robinson, Ken (2008, June 16th): Changing Education Paradigms [Video file]. Retrieved from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=youtu.be