Existentialism, Experiential Learning, and Standard Education

Existentialism, Experiential Learning, and Standard Education

A number of educational philosophies have influenced educational practices. Existentialism and experiential learning theory are among those that have drawn a major discussion among scholars and practitioners about how learning should be learned. Obviously, the two philosophies of learning place importance on individual learning. The case of Summerhill, which assumably adopted Existentialism, focused on learning through “playing,” while experiential learning theory emphasizes learning by “doing.” The two bodies of learning philosophies believe individual learners are the central actors of learning, while they value the role of teachers and designed curriculums less. Existentialism places an essence on existence and freedom, arguing that existence and freedom allow individuals to learn and identify the meaning of the life they want to live. In education, students should be given the freedom to learn, and by learning with their will, they truly learn. Summerhill was an experiment of this learning practice where students were not obligated to sit in any class or learn through a systematically structured procedure/curriculum like the ones in current standard education is strictly followed by students and teachers. The students in Summerhill were set free to play as they pleased and learn if they were interested. A.S Neill, the founder of the school as well as known as one of the existentialists, believed that students could not learn things if they were not interested in learning in them and they should not be forced to do it. Furthermore, his point of view was on the idea that children have wise and realistic innate capabilities that allow them to develop their capabilities for their self-realization when given freedom and set free of fear. He criticized schools for killing students’ creativity by trying to make children fit into schools and influencing them by forcing them to learn subjects they are not interested in. Instead, in Neill’s belief and practice, schools need to fit students as students should possess the freedom and choice of interests in what particular things they want to learn. In Summerhill, learning is through “playing.” Students can choose to play all day if they want to do so. They only need to learn if they want to learn. 

      Although focused on individual learners as a key play in learning, Experimentalist learning theory, yet, does not go too far by giving freedom to students to choose what to learn and how to learn like the way Neill and Summerhill did. Experimentalist learning still sees the value of an organized learning environment where students should abide by curriculums. However, the curriculums must allow students to experience or involve their experience in learning. Students should be able to relate what they are learning to their experience to be able to understand and use their knowledge fully in real life. Experimentalism criticizes modern schools that teach students some things that matter to them. Students do not find them helpful and start to feel hate or bored of school. Experimentalists believe in the notion of learning by doing. Hand-on experience learning like on-site or zoo/garden visits, role plays, real-life story/problem analysis, reflection, and practical implementations are among the important aspects of learning in Experimentalist learning. 

    Comparing the two philosophies relating them to education to the current standard education system, it is clear that the ideal practices of Existentialism, like Summerhill, are far from lively existing and practical reality. Although there are some existing schools similar to or following the footprint of Summerhill, the practicality and importance of such schools do not seem to add value to today’s society. However, Experimentalist learning seems more influential to current education focuses. Many countries have tried to involve experience learning in their national curriculum. Moreover, beyond formal education, informal ones like TVET focus greatly on hands-on experience as a key to developing workers’ skills and competence. 

Further reading: 

Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. Hart.

Reflection on Schooling: “Deschooling and Diploma Diseases?"

    After 12 years of education and 5 more years of undergraduate degrees in Education and International Studies, I finally got a job at the airport, working as a flight coordinator. The job required applicants to have a least a bachelor’s degree in “any major”. Having qualified for this specific requirement, I was asked a few other questions about my interests and was offered the job after the procedure. I got a three-day training to do the job and a one-month on-site observation. After gradually learning within this short training period, I independently worked on my own to calculate weight and make a balance of aircraft, copy flight plans, allocate passenger seat and cargo arrangements and communicate with pilots for the trim of the airplane. One day while I was sitting in the cockpit to brief the pilots about the weight and balance of the aircraft and waiting for their confirmation, I thought about what I was doing for the past 17 years, especially the last 5 years of my undergraduate studies which I did not use even a bit. Yet, I was competent enough to perform the tasks by having been trained for a few weeks. The thought faded away after a while. However, after reading the chapters about “Deschooling” by Illich (1970) and “Diploma Disease” by Dore (1997), I now started to remember my former curiosity again. 

    First off, what are “deschooling and diploma diseases"? Illich wrote a book to critique the practices and systematic institutionalization of schooling, comparing schooling as a package service for consumerism. According to his point of view, schooling not only kills creativity but also confuses people about the purpose of education. People start to accept that schooling is inevitable, and it becomes a socially and culturally normalized and accepted formal channel for learning. It is faulty and he called for a ‘deschooling” society. By “deschooling”, Illich meant learning does not have to be from traditional schooling. He argued that some certain learning is channeled through certain teaching in school; most, however, is from outside school. Moreover, he proposed individual learning and short training instead of compulsory and expensive schooling which is usually meaningless and ineffective. On the other hand, “Diploma Disease” is a critical concept to the social practice of normalizing credentials of academic achievement for ranking individual learners. Societies depend so much on the certification of academic qualification, known as a diploma, and use it as the main criterion for categorizing individuals’ skills and ability, especially for entry into employment. He considered this practice as a disease that causes more schooling and unnecessary degrees which some jobs had not previously required.

    Going back to my experience, I notice two things relevant. First the job I applied for required a bachelor’s degree in “any major”. In fact, the credential degree itself does not play any role in performing the assigned tasks. However, the requirement was more driven by what Dore called “‘bureaucratization”. The actual skills were acquired by specific training, not the school qualified certification. Another remarkable fact is about the meaning of schooling. It could be argued that learning does not have to be from formal schooling while one could do the tasks within a short period of training. It is not a rare case, moreover. Some of my friends who graduated in International Studies ended up working as media officers, and some bank-major graduates worked as a receptionist in a bank, which had nothing to do related to what they were taught in school. However, it is worth noting that without the degree qualification, they could not have been recruited. This raises two questions: if schooling is still relevant while many jobs do not really require what schools provide, and why a diploma is still required. 

    While my story might be true and go alight with what Illich and Dore argued, it is hard to reject schooling and academic credentials. Schooling is expensive and time-consuming, and academic credentials do not accurately measure an individual's skills; both, however, still play important roles in contemporary societies. More complicated jobs are emerging which require more critical competencies to deal with. Although schooling does not and will not provide the best single package solution, it builds a foundation and fundamental skills and abilities to further utilize the abilities to cope with challenges. Moreover, I also argue that although my ability to perform my work after a short period of training, the ability itself was not totally built by training merely. There were various factors that contributed to my ability, some of which were from my academic background and knowledge. For instance, the ability to understand mathematics and proficiency in the English language I had learned contributed to my ability to understand and perform the works. Therefore, instead of “deschooling” and disregarding academic credentials, societies should be able to create more learning opportunities in different channels, not just relying on formal schooling alone. Lifelong learning becomes relevant in the contemporary world where it is recognized that learning can take place from birth to grave, and it does not have to be from formal learning settings. Informal and non-forming learning should also be promoted and recognized. 

Structural-Functionalism and Conflict Theory on Schooling in Developing Countries

  

This paper will examine two sociological perspectives which are structural-functionalism and social power or conflict theory. Since both theories have their own strengths and weaknesses in explaining schooling in developing countries, a short discussion of how they explain it is included below. This essay will also portray the stand of the [student] author in supporting a theory among the two that is thought best describes the actual contemporary context of schooling in developing countries.

In sociology studies, it is important to take sociological perspectives to explain social issues we are facing and make projections. Sociological theories are usually considered useful for discussion, explanation and prediction of the social world. In an educational context, a variety of explanations have been extracted from structural-functionalism and social power or conflict theory. These two theories have tried to explain the purposes of schooling and how schooling has progressed from colonial to contemporary eras. Structural functionalists look at society as interconnected, in which the function of a society depends on all parts of the society to work together. Many institutions perform different tasks in society, one of which is an educational institution. Schooling, therefore, serves as an important agent/institution to sustain the function of society. For example, education offers a way to transfer knowledge and skills and a set of cultures to the citizens of the society. People within a society can use knowledge and skills to perform occupational tasks that are required or demanded for survival and growth. Schooling becomes one of the most important tasks that all nation-states have been implementing and it has become very relevant, especially in the contemporary context of the globalized world. Globalization has forced many countries to adopt new ways to survive. For example, a flow of FDIs has encouraged governments in many countries to focus on producing more human resources so that they can benefit from investments, job creation and exportations. Another example includes when a country is trying to industrialize, and it needs educated and skilled people to work in the industries. This best explains how schooling has helped societies to function toward development and prosperity. However, a counterargument is made by conflict theory. According to the conflict theory, schooling itself is in the interests of elites or the powerful group. For example, the powerful have the authority to design and implement educational policies to serve their interests or power. At a macro level, education serves the interests of the western countries and multinational corporations. At this point, conflict theory explains that multinational corporations go and invest in the Third World countries because of cheap labor, which is a form of exploitation. In short, the two perspectives have raised relevant arguments in describing schooling, yet both are still imperfect.

Schooling has been practiced for thousands of years albeit in different pictures, for example, dating back to the teaching and learning of philosophy in Ancient Greece. Although education was not widely available for everyone, the subjects learned many things including philosophies, logic, and linguistics to name a few. During the colonialism period, a broader and more formal range of schooling emerged, yet again only selective students had a chance to get an education. Colonizers introduced schooling to their loyalists and elites whom they thought could serve their interests and power. After the colonial period, mass schooling was seen in many newly independent countries from Africa to Asia to South America. The initial form of the education system in these countries seemed to be the same as that of the colonizers. This early phase of education in postcolonialism was known as the colonial legacy. Education then continued to go to different paths depending on political and social orientations. However, it is worth mentioning that although schooling becomes a universal practice, enrollments in schools and its purposes are divided. Many developing countries find it very hard to define, promote and sustain education. For example, many countries in Sub-Sahara and South Asia still have low enrollment and school completion rates. Governments in developing countries do not have enough funding for education. Lack of teachers, teacher quality and school facilities is another problem among many that developing countries have been facing. International agencies like the World Bank have been working with developing countries to provide aid and loans to develop their education system. The World Bank is the biggest player in assisting less developed countries to achieve a better education environment. However, it is important to note that international agencies like the World Bank have their agenda to be achieved. For instance, the World Bank will convince or force, in a more extreme term, aid or loan receiving countries to adapt to its recommendations of reforming or implementation. Therefore, it is more common to see similar policies on education in developing countries. Conflict theory may see that the recommendations from the World Bank, for example, are an influence or another way of colonialism from western countries or interests of multinational corporations. However, before we jump to that conclusion, it is recommended that we look at the issue more analytically. 

Conflict theory is more relevant to describe schooling in the pre and during colonialism. As a matter of fact, education was very limited and only those from wealthy families or selective persons had the ability to study. This was especially true during the colonialism when only elite groups were allowed to study, and the colonizers allowed schooling because it served their colonial purposes. However, in the contemporary world, the purposes of education might have changed. Most countries regard education as an instrument to achieve growth. Although it is still limited in many developing countries, it is usually not because of the discouragement or ban to access, but rather because of social, political and environmental barriers. More importantly, many newly industrialized countries have prioritized their education as a key to achieving a high growth and supporting and sustaining industrialization. Many developing countries also prioritize education as a key sector to achieve economic growth. Therefore, it is safe to say all countries identify the importance of education as a part of the development of the society, which is closely relevant to what structural-functionalists explain about the theory. As mentioned above, the fact that developing countries have no choice but to accept policy recommendations from international donors or agencies like the World Bank might give an implication that education becomes a new indirect way of colonizing developing countries. However, the fact that developing countries lack expertise in designing and implementing a policy on their own should also be taken into a consideration. Aids or loans might go wasted if there are weak or irrelevant policies and implementations in education. The World Bank consists of highly trained researchers and well-documented research and data about the development and experiences in developing and improving education in developing countries. Although no “one fit all” might be true, it is necessary to understand that those agencies try to improve education systems so that aid and loan receiving countries can benefit from them. Moreover, many developing countries accept the aid, make loans and allow non-governmental organizations to operate in order to maintain education in their countries. This shows how relevant schooling is as an institution to function in its roles in society.

In conclusion, structural-functionalism better explains the contemporary context of schooling in developing countries. Although we learn that throughout world history, education was a tool to serve the interests of elite groups or the powerful, especially true during the colonial period, globalization might have changed the way states perceive education. Education becomes a key element along with many other factors for economic development. Countries, regardless of developing or developed, regard education as an institution that serves societal, economic and cultural purposes and functions. 

Declaration on Adult Education in ASEAN (Model ASEAN Summit)

 Declaration on Adult Education in ASEAN

WE, the Heads of State/Government of Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), on the occasion of the 2021 Model ASEAN Summit on Adult Education in ASEAN via Video Conference, on 14th July 2021

ACKNOWLEDGING the significance of ASEAN’s role in collaboration to achieve a highly integrated and cohesive economy through developing adult education by providing free education, life skill, vocational skill, welfare, and digital literacy for future skilled labor mobility in the region; 

RECALLING our commitment made in ASEAN Declaration on Human Resources Development for the Changing World of Work was adopted by the 36th ASEAN Summit (2020), Bangkok Declaration on Advancing Partnership in Education for 2030 agenda for sustainable development in ASEAN (2019), Vientiane Declaration On Transition From Informal Employment To Formal Employment Towards Decent Work Promotion in ASEAN (2016), Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Higher Education (2015), Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Higher Education on the Occasion of the 27^th ASEAN Summit (2015); 

DECLARING the ASEAN work plan on education 2016-2020, which aimed to support and implement the ASEAN Post-2015 Vision on Education, and  strengthen, deepen and widen educational cooperation among the ASEAN member states, as well as the ASEAN Dialogue Partners by expanding the scope of education cooperation towards the development of a more coordinated, cohesive and coherent ASEAN position and its contribution to global education issues;

ADOPTING the ASEAN 5-Year Work Plan on Education (2011-2015), which addressed the importance of universal access to basic education of high quality provided by teachers who are well educated and able to teach knowledgeably about the history and heritage of their nation, the need for TVET to be responsive to economic needs, and for higher  education to focus on delivering world class teaching, learning and research and identified four main priority areas and 20 specific programmes for implementation by 2015;

REAFFIRMING that one of the objectives of ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) is to increase the participation and engagement of women, youth, elderly, persons with disabilities, vulnerable and marginalized groups in the productive workforce by enhancing their entrepreneurial skills, particularly to improve their social well-being and contribute towards national development and regional economic integration with the actions to establish an ASEAN Forum on Youth Entrepreneurship by 2009, implement a women entrepreneurship network by 2010, and build an ASEAN network of experts on entrepreneurship to, among others, conduct skills training for out-of-school youths, the elderly and persons with disabilities by 2010; 

DO HEREBY DECLARE OUR COMMITMENT TO:

1.       Encourage and strengthen regional cooperation and cross-border collaboration of higher education systems in ASEAN by offering more mobilities for adult learners and educators to obtain the new and advanced quality of knowledge and exchange good practical experiences, and establishing university partnerships to promote collaborative study and research programs on the priority areas identified by ASEAN and to develop academic and professional human resources in the region and transmit scientific and scholarly knowledge and information to achieve ASEAN goals;

2.    Promote accessibility and broader participation so that women and men of different social, cultural, economic, educational and other backgrounds are included in adult education and that quality learning opportunities are accessible to all individuals, by developing effective educational responses which address accessibility, autonomy, equity as well as inclusion issues including: 

A.         establishing appropriate strategies to promote adults’ access to and participation in learning activities and to enhance incentives for them to undertake such activities,

B.  tolerating no discrimination on any grounds, including age, gender, ethnicity, migrant status, religion, disability, illness, rurality, sexual identity or orientation, poverty, displacement, imprisonment, occupation or profession,

C.   providing special attention and action to enhance access to quality learning for target disadvantaged groups such as individuals with low levels of, or no, literacy and numeracy and schooling, street children or vulnerable youths in a detention home, the workforce groups (industrial workforce, agriculture, general services, factories, migrant workers and the unemployed), the ethnic or indigenous groups, individuals with disability, prisoners, the elderly, people affected by conflict or disasters, refugees, stateless or displaced persons, and

D.   addressing learners’ needs and aspirations with adult learning approaches that respect and reflect the diversity of learners’ languages and cultures, creating bridges that connect different groups and reinforce unity within communities; 

3.    Implement a federal direct student loan program to subsidize students especially the disadvantaged groups to pursue higher education to meet the labor market needs in ASEAN regions, giving students a better chance at a higher education level as education is the main driver of the social and economic development in all regions, enhancing their competitive capacity with other students at the higher education level, and reducing inequality in education and increasing human capitals in ASEAN regions; 

4.     Emphasize the digital literacy skill as a significant skill in opening ways for employability from regional to a global scale by adopting and promoting digital literacy skills in educational systems starting from upper secondary education to higher education by increasing the accessibility to the internet and technology devices such as Wi-Fi and computers, ensuring that students will have the capacity to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers and other social media platforms, and guaranteeing an assertiveness of citizens who are capable of living, learning and working in a society where communication and information are shared through digital technology; 

 

5.  Implement harmonization of education systems in ASEAN to ensure comparable/similar education programs and activities providing to students in each country to respond to the skill demands in the region by establishing quality assurance guidelines through system assessment (planning, controlling & follow-up) to improve the education quality in the region, introducing the regional educational framework to provide a curriculum and learning outcomes that are consistent to the labor market, and implementing regional skills competition to support workforce development and to achieve regional standards competency; 

 

6.      Request that university courses and instructions be in line with ASEAN labor market demands, meaning that all member states can enhance their international efficiency by focusing more on soft skills in adult education such as cross-disciplinary outlooks, critical thinking, collective problem-solving, or any necessary and required skills and knowledge that meet the demands of the ASEAN market because these skills are very essential in today’s industry in our region, for they open doors for more employment opportunities to our peoples especially when engaging in cross-border commerce and investment, and also allow a better free flow of skilled labors in ASEAN which is one of the main objectives of the AEC;  

 

7.     Promote an expert mobility program named ‘ASEAN Professional Initiative’ for transferring ASEAN experts in the field of agriculture, technology, mechanics, masonry, carpentry, brewing, and cooking for 3 months, and the program is coordinated by ASEAN with the collaboration from the Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training of all ASEAN member states — this program is on a voluntary basis which means that the requested country can request ASEAN to coordinate experts in a specific skill from other ASEAN countries, and the requested country is responsible for funds, safety, accommodation and visa for experts

 

8.    Encourage ASEAN member states to consider strengthening and improving mutual cooperative assistance by helping each other’s capacity in adult education, and sharing their experiences which require ASEAN member states to promote the regular exchange of information, documentation and resources on policies, concepts and practices, as well as relevant research, among adult learning and professional education at the national, regional and international levels; and

 

9.       Provide special care and training not only to individuals who use technology devices to support their everyday lives and jobs but also to those who do not receive the same treatment and care, those who are still seeking help to access basic education facilities, and those who will most likely be denied access to education, technology skills, labor skills and professional skills.

Done via video conference, this fourteenth Day of July in the year Two Thousand and Twenty One.

Done by students from class M3.4 (2020-2021), DOE, IFL, RUPP

Global Studies 302: Introduction to ASEAN

Virtual Class, MS Team

Disclaimer: This declaration is written by student delegates solely for simulation and academic purposes. These views herein do not in any way represent the view of any Cambodian university and ministry and government or any other institutions in ASEAN. 

***This article is published here for the purpose of sharing the format/sample. We are aware that there are many rooms to improve for this paper.

Declaration on Internationalization in Higher Education In ASEAN (Model ASEAN Summit)

DECLARATION ON INTERNATIONALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN ASEAN

WE, the Heads of State/Government of Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), on the occasion of the 2021 Model ASEAN Summit in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, on 13th July 2021;

RECALLING the Bandar Seri Begawan Declaration on Youth Entrepreneurship and Employment, adopted at Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam on 22nd May 2013;

TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the four priority areas and 20 specific programmes for implementation under the ASEAN Five Year Work Plan on Education 2011- 2015;

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the Eight Key Elements on Education Adopted at the 8th ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting (ASED) in Lao PDR, September 2014;

COMMENDING the on-going efforts in developing the ASEAN 5-Year Work Plan on Education 2016-2020;

REAFFIRMING the Cha-Am Hua Hin Declaration on Strengthening Cooperation on Education to Achieve an ASEAN Caring and Sharing Community, adopted at Cha-Am Hua Hin, Thailand on 24th October 2009;

DO HEREBY DECLARE OUR COMMITMENT TO:

1. Encourage and strengthen partnerships among universities of ASEAN countries, by providing a variety of scholarships to young talented applicants, introducing cultural field trips and expeditions to education programs to further unify cultural diversity among ASEAN nations; 

2. Implement an ASEAN academic franchise to eliminate the difficulty of credit score, by exchanging procedures for eligible applicants, providing domestic-based learning environment to local students, considering franchise only the specialized major or selected major that contribute the most to our country, and authorizing our local lecturers to be trained at franchisor institutions; 

3. Enhance the abilities and qualities of teaching by revising study programs for students to gain intercultural competencies, incorporating more up-to-date equipment to provide better quality in training to specific education courses, and providing training sessions to domestic educators to maximize overseas teaching efficiency while reducing costs; 

4. Monitor the effectiveness of ASEAN curriculums, by introducing necessary changes in order to provide students with up-to-date learning experiences, analyzing the current curricular education to ensure the quality of its courses, and incorporating transferable credits to other universities in ASEAN member states; 

5. Support the significant role of academic and administrative staff in further development, by operating the exchange programs, exchanging the experience and the effectiveness to obtain the knowledge or skills to improve the advanced education from other well-established universities in ASEAN, improving and fostering various skills for student personal development and increasing academic opportunities; 

6. Improve students’ study performance and readiness for academic changes, by providing new knowledge for both national and international universities, strengthening research studies and knowledge production for students, observing students’ learning outcomes, creating more opportunities for academic pursuit, including secondary languages into curriculums, and implementing models of digital and blended learning in the classroom; 

7. Accept and display uncommonly planned administration for international applicants, by offering many types of assistance and services that covers immigration procedure and house funding to reduce costs and expenses for oversea students, recruiting and training faculty staffs to understand the diverse cultures of ASEAN countries, joining forces with local area offices and family volunteers that offer moral supports to exchange students, providing pre-class support to better prepare students for their oversea movements, and creating working programs that provide students with the opportunity to earn extra profits; 

8. Exchange information regarding the effectiveness of ASEAN countries' curriculum to establish stronger partnership and promote educational changes, by promoting cultural exchange between students to strengthen ASEAN identity, and providing both students and educators with the opportunity to travel overseas;

9. Provide incentives to encourage students to further pursue higher education, by providing more direct admission places for socio-economically disadvantaged students, facilitating greater access to education for both students and educators, and considering the importance of academic credits transfer procedure for students when they return to their home countries; 

10. Enhance the mobility of ASEAN learners in order to improve and boost the awareness of the importance of higher education in ASEAN, by improving the quality of higher education programs within the region to global standards, and offering overseas training courses to domestic and foreign educators. 

Done in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, this Thirteenth Day of July in the year Two Thousand and Twenty One.

Done by students from class M3.5 (2020-2021), DOE, IFL, RUPP

Global Studies 302: Introduction to ASEAN

Virtual Class, MS Team

Disclaimer: This declaration is written by student delegates solely for simulation and academic purposes. These views herein do not in any way represent the view of any Cambodian university and ministry and government or any other institutions in ASEAN. 

***This article is published here for the purpose of sharing the format/sample. We are aware that there are many rooms to improve for this paper.

My Reflection on Student Assessment

The system of giving numbers or letters to indicate students’ performance is commonly practiced almost all over the world, and my university is no exception. The bachelor program in which I took requires me to sit for exams, tests and other tasks to receive those numbers known as scores and/or letter known as grades. My academic performance in the B.A program is shown on a piece of paper known as Academic Transcript with both scores and grades and their indications. Yet, those numbers and letters are very subjective and do not, I argue, perfectly reflect the actual performance of students in general and mine. This article is written to describe (1) how my academic performance is assessed, (2) my personal analytical opinions on prior assessments on my learning and (3) my preferences on assessments and (4) my overall evaluation of the prior assessments on my actual learning achievement.  

Prior Assessments

The four-year bachelor program required me to sit for an exam (entrance exam) even before I could register and enroll in the program. The program assessed students’ proficiency with their designed proficiency test that contained Vocabulary, Grammar and Sentence Structure and Reading sections. Those who scored top among the test takers were admitted to enroll in the program. The system of assessing students using exams did not end there. The four-year studies were practiced with similar things. Although exams, in this sense referring to final exams, were not the only criterion to assess students’ performance, they were still dominant components that affected the indicated scores and/or grades on students’ performance. Over the years, final exams were reduced their domination on assessments and on-going assessments gained better popularity. Reforms on how students were assessed were made during my study. Final exams decreased their percentage from 50% to 40% on overall assessments of students. Meanwhile, on-going assessments gained their percentage up to 60%. The on-going assessments contained different criteria to assess students, some of which, however, included two tests or a mid-term which was worth 20% and quizzes 5%. By looking at this, it shows again, testing was still dominant on overall assessments. The program did include class participation, presentation, assignment, and homework as parts of assessments, yet those criteria were inferior compared to testing methods, which included both final exams and tests and quizzes (in on-going assessment). If we take a closer look, the above testing methods dominated over 65% of overall assessments. 

Opinions on the Assessments 

What favors me about these assessments is the increase of values or percentage of the on-going assessments within overall assessments. This gives me a positive thought, which is parallel with my preferences, that learning takes place during the class and activities beyond exams should be assessed because exams alone could not really measure the actual learning outcomes of students. Assessing students on their class discussions and participation, presentations, role-play or simulation activities, assignments and homework and other tasks is more meaningful. Unfortunately, these important criteria get less attention. Exams and tests are still dominant assessing criteria that take over 65% of the overall. This fact raises questions to me if we study to prepare for exams and tests or we study to learn. How reliable and valid are these exams and tests to measure my learning and understanding? These questions have never been explained by lecturers or program coordinators. Gradually, it has become a culture which no one has questioned and a common practice for all course assessments on students’ learning. Students generally do not understand clearly what it means by particular scores they get, and, in some cases, teachers do not consider what it means when they give particular scores. In some other cases, tests contain errors and some questions do not reflect student learning and course objectives. Some other questions reach only the first level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, which requires students to remember and restate the information from the book. Are these methods of assessments useful and effective ways to measure students? Are these methods accurate to generate numbers and letters that are shown on students’ academic transcripts? These questions are partially answered in the last section of this article. 

Preference on Assessments

As briefly disclosing above, I would prefer assessments that evaluate students’ on-going activities (process and product) in a greater way than just exams and tests. By this, it means that exams and tests should give minimal impacts on overall assessments. Although exams and tests still play an important role in assessments, in my opinion, they should get one-third or less on overall assessments. At the same time, assessments should rather focus on processes of learning, such as simulations, role-plays and the likes and products, including assignment, homework, reflection papers and to name a few.

The Assessments and Actual Learning Achievements  

Overall, I think the assessments described above on my learning achievements do not really reflect my actual learning achievements. The first reason is that test designers and markers are not experts or are incapable of designing and marking tests reliably and validly. Secondly, tests themselves are designed with faults and do not test what is intended. Thirdly, I am not a good test taker, especially on those tests that contain questions requiring memorization. Therefore, such assessments do not really measure my learning achievements; instead, they downgrade the evaluations of my academic performance on the transcript. 

Beliefs and Practices: Teaching English as A Foreign Language

 I. Beliefs about teaching and Teachers 

Teachers’ beliefs are of critical importance to the understanding of the process of teaching and learning. Different teachers hold different beliefs on how their classroom should go. Of course, there are many variables that affect the beliefs of teachers, and it is not denied that their beliefs affect classroom activities, their behaviors, teaching and learning principles and practices, and learners (Gilakjani and Sabouri, 2017). I am not an exception. My beliefs about teaching affect the way I teach and the way my students learn. There are many philosophical explanations and approaches to teaching and learning, and to some extent, I am more influenced by some than the others. From teacher-centered to autonomous approaches, there is no extreme end for me. I do not believe that the process of learning should be accomplished by a teacher alone. Meanwhile, complete autonomy only creates chaos. I believe that teaching should be somewhere in between - somewhere a teacher can be a helpful resource provider to students or a scaffolder for students to process their learning beyond. Moreover, teaching is an art. It should include entertainment, a sense of humor, excitement, and simplification, in addition to well-prepared pedagogies. All in all, beliefs about teachers and teaching play significant roles in impacting learners and learning, and my beliefs are that teachers need to play considerably vital roles in scaffolding learners and make sure the classroom is an environment of both enjoyment and learning.

II. Beliefs about Learning and Learners 

When we talk about learning and learners, motivation can’t be ignored. Motivation in learning can be classified in different categories, including but not limited to, intrinsic and external motivations. Ones can learn better when they have motivation in their learning, or in other words, no matter how good a curriculum and teacher are or how advanced technology is used in the classroom, they might learn less or the least if they find no motivation in their learning. Yet, we have to bear in mind that there is no single factor affecting learning; motivation is just one of those several factors. I believe that learners need to be motivated enough to acquire knowledge and that will be even more beneficial when other factors, such as an appropriate curriculum, qualified teachers, a good learning environment, and assisted equipment availability, are fruitfully involved. All of these factors will assist learners to achieve the acquisition of the subject of learning.  

III. Social Context of Language Learning and Course Curriculum  

Other elements considered to be vitally important in a process of learning include social context and course curriculum. These two variables contribute to teaching and teachers, and learning and learners – in ways good or bad. A social context that appreciates a foreign language, for example, makes it easier for the learners in that context to expose more in the language learning and authentically use the language to serve their purposes. In some other cases, a social context can also drive external motivation among learners to achieve their goals. An example includes a society in which a foreign language is necessarily needed for employability. Another element worth discussing is the role of a course curriculum. A good, adequate, and well-designed curriculum takes much effort, and it is not easy to develop one. Yet it is of significance to always have it to pave a right and appropriate path to achieve a real desired outcome. Moreover, to develop a responsive course curriculum, it takes many factors into account, and that includes all the matters mentioned above - teaching and teachers, learning and learning, and social context. In turn, a designed course curriculum affects all the above-mentioned characters. A course curriculum influences teachers and especially their teaching. Furthermore, it also impacts how the subject/language is learned and knowledge is structured. More importantly, a social context and a course curriculum are correlated. A social context influences how a course curriculum is designed and, of course, a course curriculum responds to the needs within the context, and it, to some extent, impacts the social context future to come.

References: 

Gilakjani, A. P. and N. B. Sabouri (2017). "Teachers’ Beliefs in English Language Teaching and Learning: A Review of the Literature." Canadian Center of Science and Education 10(4).