Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

The philosopher and pedagogist, John Dewey, once emphasized that for education to be constructive for the society: it must not alienate the student in its processes. That means it must be authentic and grounded on the real-life experiences of the students. Chomsky establishes that language is not limited to the verbal structures, there are other symbolic means to represent the world which has impact into the learning processes of the individuals. Learning is a complex cultural, social, psychological and biological process, and the dominant world language is not the only medium for learning.

Vygotsky defines learning as a permanent behavioral change in an individual and this takes place with the nurturing supervision of a mature adult to scaffold a learner from the current development to a more competent state. Freire argues that genuine education that is emancipatory is grounded in the cultural context – in the lived cultural experiences of individuals in a geopolotical system. Bandura establishes that learning takes place in social interactions – in our connection to the social world and everything in our environment. These philosophical and theoritical assumptions on learning establish the empirical bases to consider that education is adaptive to the social, cultural, psychological and biological nature of the learner, where the language that fits education is not reduced to a single dominant language.

Language is a vehicle of communication. Education which is all about teaching and learning is a communicative process. It is axiomatic that for teaching and learning to take place that language is used in the interaction between the pedagagouge and the learner. But learning is not simply about the interaction of the learner and the teacher. The learner must be engaged with other elements in the process, such as books, realia objects, environment, cultural artifacts, tools and technology. In these interactions, mastery of specific language is required for the learner to have a grasp of the learning concepts.

English is a language, and so are Filipino, French, German, Nihonggo, Mandarin, Latin, Arabic and the many others. The Filipino language which is a cultural artifact does not carry a value higher or lower than any other language, because culture is a rich and neutral matrix of values. Should teaching then be confined to the use of English languge when not every student is adept with it? Or should teaching be more flexible to adapt a language that is understood by most? But, how about the existing social expectations of the larger community about the language of the educated person?

This is a dilemma for a country which operates with a largely Western orientation about education. An effective curriculum should adress, foremost the learning needs, secondly the society’s needs and lastly serve the institutional dictum. When students raise the need for understanding, language must be adjusted to their level so that discursive interaction may take place. When the society and the industry demand for graduates with very high English language proficiency, the curriculum must provide the mechanisms and programs for that. What is the language of business? What degree of proficiency in that language of business is needed? The institution must adjust the curriculum to both the learner’s needs and the society’s needs.

Learning should be authentic, that it should adress societal needs. At least, within a framework of the universty as a manufacturing stage to produce qualified resources for capitalistic labor, higher education should match their graduate attributes to industrial needs to make their products more employable. In culturally-based frameworks of education, Paolo Freire argues that it should be emancipatory. Education must be liberating for the learners, moving the students from ignorance to knowing, from passivity to taking actions to better their causes.


A learner’s ineptitude or lack of proficiency in one language can be delibitating. That is true in cases when language is so foreign or alien to the learner. To learn better, the student needs to be more adept with the language. One who is not just good in English will be challenged as they are at risk of not understanding anything in a largely English based curriculum. That learner needs to proficiency in reading and speaking the required language to participate in the active process of academic discourse. But, is English the only medium of instruction? Is English the language of economic production? Is English the only language the industry speaks? Is English the language of liberty and progress? Is it the language of the Filipino’s daily life?

The issue of language in Philippine Education has long been debated upon. There are those who think it should be English. Others think it should be Filipino. Some others think it should be bilingual. There are various perspectives. Theoretically though, there is not one specific language for Education. For if this is so, the world’s education will have common language of instruction. English proficiency is not a language of social status, it is just another language among the many others. The best language of learning is one that changes the behavior of learners, which turns them to become vital contributors to the development of our society.

Spelling errors, problems in choice of words, ineffective styles, wrong use of punctuations, poor coordination of ideas, subject-agreement problems, wrong use of verb tenses… the list of evident problematic language use is a taxonomy of both human inadequacy in the use of langauge and the issues of language curriculum perspectives. There are three dominant concepts in English language instruction that are applied in the teaching of English as Second Language, English as Foreign Language or English to Speakers of Other Languages: prescriptive, restrictive and generative paradigms.

It has been a dominant perspective to teach English with emphasis on the grammatical aspect of the language. This traditional approach has had a rich history in the Western educational paradigm. That students were instructed grammar in order to master the language. The rigid rules of language, its syntax, semantics, diction, and other aspects were like transferred to students through remote memorization and practice into writing. Here, students should be able to demonstrate mastery of the rules evident in their use of the language in speech and writing, and measured through their recall of the rules. The prescriptive paradigm of language teaching and learning emphasizes on the consistency of adherence to the rules in the use of language. Thus, the prescriptive paradigm addresses the need for learning the rules of language and applying them in various communication situations.

The other paradigm emphasises a communicative approach to language teaching and learning. This implies that language is a tool for communication, and communication seeks understanding. When there is understanding between communicating agents, language does not matter much anymore. Because language is generative, changes take place in various contexts. Hence, with a generative paradigm on language teaching, learning is contextualized by exposing students into communicative actions, whole language approaches so students will learn, value and use of language more effectively to achieve understanding.

Both the generative and prescriptive paradigms on language teaching can work interdependently. While it is true that language is generative, it is not static or fixed, in the time continuum and within spatial bounds, language use will be vary. But, even communication theories suggest that there are rules in the discourse processes and there are principles in it. One tension point is using a specific ground or criteria for comparison in use of language. There are englishes and not just English in the world.

Between British and Americans who are native speakers of the language are great differences. Compare these native white speakers to other English-speaking countries in Canada and Australia, differences are still noticeable. Moreso, with those of the African English speaking countries. World Englishes vary and change, and so generative. Thus, there is no one drop rule or prescription of language teaching. Critically, keeping an eye to evaluate one country’s use of English to either of British or that of the American’s is hegemonic.

When students could identify the parts of speech, identify the errors, identify the pattern of the sentence, identify the kinds of sentences and identify whatever should be memorized about language, that is teaching which is paralleled to students’ learning of the language. Paper and pencil tests answerable through multiple choices and fill in the blanks should measure language learning. This perspective can be construed as a restrictive paradigm. It results from the idolatrous tendency of language scholars to mimic language that is not native to other speakers of the language. Instead, of understanding a geopolotical system’s use of English and improve it from there, the generative value of language is degenerated to be a form of deficiency.

Such identification of inequity stereotypes non-native English speakers, and so those who find the mimicking convention way too difficult would just give up on increasing their level of proficiency. While others who show just a little mastery, though still imperfect tend to push the less fluent or struggling learner to the side, and so the latter ignores the value of learning the lingua franca, because they feel more confident to be understand when they don’t use the language at all.

Language is generative, there are historical and anthropological evidences to that. Shakespearan or Victorian English are obsolete in the context of modern day conversation, except for extracting meaning from classical literary texts. There are languages that have been extinguished from the tounges of the people. There are new words being coined and used, and they don’t even follow the orthodoxies of language convention. Should we then stick to the rules of language style from centuries past? How does such intention restrict the process of generating understanding on the generative development of human language?

Prescriptive approach to language teaching, still applies, but such conventions are now being questioned. Whose conventions are these anyway? Whose people are using this language convention? Whose culture and time are they representing? The distance of space and time where those conventions were collected as corpus of language use may not be so proximal after all to the present generation of learners. The gorge to be bridged will really be too wide and greatly impossible to help learners acquire a “perfectly modelled” proficiency as prescribed.

While language is generative, the epistemology of language must also be generative. Prescriptions of language usage need reexamination. But, such effort of examination must be grounded and adapted in contemporary context. The world now with its many englishes dwells in communication network, and the basic rule of this networked world is “understanding”. With this frame of thinking, who is not understanding? Is it the one learned of prescribed conventions or the one learned through the experiences of the generative language?

To illustrate this, one student who is very skillful in the use of computers could submit an original written work that is almost flawless of errors. But, the same student when writing with his hand, without the computer could express the same thoughts as he understood them and what was understood by the reader, enormously gross of spelling errors, punctuation errors and sentence structure errors. While tools are there, they must be used to where they can work best for a learner. The prescribed language conventions are also tools, but they also need upgrading and retuning.

In the illustration, the student’s problem is caused by several factors. The student has dyslexia. The student has spent most of his development years reading texts through the computer screen. The paper and the pen are strange and fragile tools for his fingers so agile clicking on the keyboard. Typing for this student is more of a breeze while his penmanship is hardly legible in its ‘crookedness’. The same student was taught to maximize technology with the many other assignments he had before, yet he is placed in foreignly inconvenient situation of working on paper and pencils without the tool he knows best.

The tool that the student knows has all the function keys to check his spelling errors, to look up the meaning of a word, to find a synonym or antonym for a word, to tell him of the sentence errors and options to correct them. Most of these are what teachers learned from the conventions of prescriptive language approaches have never encountered in their lives. Yet, the same teachers love to read the prints. The students create the prints and they can do that exceedingly well with the tools they grew up with. But, teachers will insist, they have to know and practice language withouth technology.

Again, the conventions of language is but just human technology. The time is here, where the reality of a paperless world is in the picture. But, many particularly those in the field of teaching are afraid to withdraw from. The directions for 21st century education must hold true in teaching the students new skills sets. They grew up with the technology, they know how to use it, and they are eager to discover more of it because it works productively for them. However, the tools that are available are restrictively used in language teaching. Language use is different from language in use, teaching language that used to be may not necessarily adapt to the language in use today.

Who you think you are is who you become.

This may sound new age, but it is not. Many of the great philosophers we know have taught of the same concept, and due to its practicality, logic and application, the value of such construct becomes ever more significant to the times. In a world that sees people as a sea of diversity, counting on the outstanding competetive value of the individual; it matters that a person knows himself and is in control of his self to find a niche and succeed.

Human identity, according to Rene Descartes is defined by the individidual ability to think. Existence or being is determined by that intellectual facility to reason and argue, to understand problems and define solutions. The Greek aphorism of  knowing thyself, which Socrates alluded to the practice of self-examination, reverb in the modern and even into the post-modern constructs of understanding the human psyche and even the divine in the human being.

Even the religions of the world apply this construct of understanding one’s self for its emancipation and elevation into the eternal. Natural science explains the immesurable potential of the human mind as thinking machine to predetermine the actions of the human body, the behavior of the individual to himself and towards others in the society. Physiologically, the brain has neurological functions and affective roles to give an able individual the control over his body and so his life.

Very few understand the value of a good mindset to effect a good life. Although, in common beliefs, many agree that a positive outlook in life results positively as well. Some others even look into the ancient oriental beliefs on the laws of karma . While others are mystified by the no-secret at all law of attraction. The writing on the wall is clear, “who you think you are is who you become”.

Should you call this a philosophy and hold it as a guiding principle in your life, then you are up in the making of the person you may have yet no idea at all. The big question mark in the JoHaRi window, that tells something that others and you don’t know about could get clearer to you by now, as you internalize and become more aware of the power of your mind to change you and your life. The said principle is not a mantra that you keep repeating to yourself, it is a life-changing process.

Stephen Covey teaches of life-changes and finding voice as a change of habit. Peter Senge posits the importance of vision and systems thinking.   A vision, just like any dream is a product of the mind, the difference is that a vision is constructed consciously, while a dream dwells in the subconscious. You need to seize the vision first to cease from mere dreaming or wishing fantasy. That’s where you begin, according to Covey, with your end in mind. Then you need to face the challenge of changing the habit.

A change of habit needs a change of mindset. You are a habitual creature as you have rituals and territories. You like to dwell in your comfort zones, stick on the conventions, keep the status quo and drop the idea of change because it inconveniences you. Yet, in the most troublesome times when you are stressed, pressed and downcasted with  problems, it gets to your nerves that you clamor for change. That is a crisis that could result to a turning point in your life. But then rarely do people notice this, and so you are not able to transform your self and live the life you ever wanted.

How do you see yourself, then? Who are you? What are you? What makes you who you are? What do you want in your life? If you see yourself a failure, then you become a failure and so you can never succeed. If you see yourself happy in where you are now, then you do not want to be in other place. If you think the meager thing you have is sucess, then what else will you look forward to? If you think, this world is your only home, then there is no other final destination for you.

When you face the mirror everyday, what do you see? You want to see the best in you, the best in your surface that your eyes could see. That is your body, the image that others you think others will probably see. But there is more to you that is unseen by your naked eye. Antoine Von De Exupiery tells this to kids: that the most important things or the most beautiful things in your life are not seen by the naked eye. But then, everything is relative, yet social interacting individuals have a set of agreed values to that relative thing.

You may argue that there are just things that one cannot change in one’s life. There must be many, and that is true. There are non-elective traits and characteristics you have in your personality or in your life that you did not even choose, yet you can change them. Electively, you can choose the way you want your life to be, the way your body to be, the way you want to act, the way you want to think about your self and the way you think about others, the way you want you want to live and even the way you want to die.

No one knows your thoughts, but you. No one understands your situation any better but you. No one can actually manipulate your thoughts lest you allow others to. Your change of mindset about yourself, about your abilities, about your decisions, about your past and everything else about you and your life, can yield to the changes in your totality, in your identity and personality. But, all these will require that you act on that thought.

Only upon knowing yourself  then you can choose and act right on your way to the change you want to see in you. If you can not change your mindset, you can never realize that change in your life, neither can you be so influential to affect change in others.

In what other form do we come to know knowledge, except for language? Arts, numbers, objects, patterns: are they not systematic forms of expression that we identify to be signs for what they signify? Our understanding of reality are represented in signs which we also understand as language, for language is a signifier.

Everything in nature that we already know are supposed to have an equivalent in langauge, a term that refers to what it signifies. Sociologists and philosophers believe that social reality is constructed, and it is constructed through social interaction. In that event of human contact with other individuals, thoughts, ideas, meanings, experiences, perceptions are shared through language.

To participate in the construction and reconstruction of social realities, one needs to be equipped with the language and the communication skills to make use of the latter effectively. It is a necessity to know the terms to facilitate understanding of what the term refers to. What is known includes all that is we have about in our language. What we do not know of becomes understandable in a while through languaging.

If we are not so skilled to understand language, it axiomatic that we will have shortcomings in understanding the realities of both the conscious and even the unconscious mind. But, if we construe the reality that language speaks the mind and the very nature of a person, then we can be able to understand a person in his thoughts and feelings through his language.

What a person says in his language become a representation of himself. What is lacking in his language is probably not part of his realities yet. Absence of a thought is figured in what can not be verbalized or that which is not in one’s language system. It is a gap that needs to be filled.

Wittgenstein said that our world is limited by our language. Focault believes that language is power in which the many constructed realities in our world are built upon. Language is imminent, ubiquitous and essential to our very existence and the understanding of our selves.

But language is not the reality, only the representation of it. Yet, through it we understand realities. Of love, of peace, of war, of truth, of humanity, of self,of experiences of this world, and of all many other things we have abstracted and concretized, the object in which we understand them as knowledge is through language.

To be knowledgeable, one needs to muster the use of language and the understanding of its systems and structure. This cannot be foregone and taken for granted. One can never speak, read, write or think of any knowledge that is not part of his language system. All the more, he who does not understand the language does not understand the knowledge in it.

Our knowledge of the things we need to learn, our knowledge of life, and our knowledge of the realities around us, are there for our understanding. We can learn them in many ways, by reading, by listening, by watching, by sensing and experiencing them. We need the language facility to really make sense of those, but the more we enage with knowledge, our language likewise grows.

It surprised me to find data that do not seem to correspond with the theories on reading and comprehension. Reading experts believe that comprehension is positively related to reading rate. That the faster one reads, comprehension also increases with it.

A bunch of freshman students I have now batted at an average a reading rate of 132-200 wpm. Studies inform that the average reading rate is around 150 wpm, that is the same as the speaking rate. First, those who scored above 150 but still within the range below 200 wpm were happy. But, when they realized that the reading rate of 100-200 wpm does not fit a college students, they were shocked.

Studies show that a reading rate of 100-200 wpm is that of 6-12 years old. This is just enough for grade schoolers who are still learning to read by mere decoding. They have the tendency to vocalize and subvocalize what they are reading, and that their comprhension is not that stable to score at 60% or below 50%. The data, without exaggeration, implies that the reading ability of students even in college, is the same of their reading rate back in grade school.

For a college student, I see this rate as case of reading conveniently. This trend shows the reading proficiency level of students brought by poor reading instruction back in high school. College students are not to be blamed, but the dilemma is a terrible challenge for college reading. The demand for reading in college is just so voluminous that such skill would be inconvenient.

While my students scored high in comprehension, they feel confident that their reading rate is just fine. However, if students are tasked to do research for small assignments and big ones, surely they will suffer and try to sneak away from the academic task by mere plagiarizing. This will be vicious cycle until the students learn and apply strategy in reading. That will only come when they realize that their reading proficiency is rather problematic.

Reading for convenience is not reading at all, but it is a mere decoding process.  It is speak-reading, and it can never be speed reading because the reader rests his confidence of understanding the text by vocalizing, subvocalizing and hearing the text. Speaking and hearing are more convenient abilities for any one, because they are common day to day activities we engage in. Reading is inconvenient for anyone who does not have the skills.

Speed reading is silent reading. It is an eyes and mind activity. Ears are not involved in it, nor the mouth, the lips, the throat, or the diaphragm. It is not a virtual experience of being silent, but a total silence when the eyes are focused on the texts and swiftyly moving over them. One does not hear a tiny voice in the head when speed reading.

It is not an ordinary skill, but a strategic technique to help learners take more of what they read and read even more with greater efficiency and control. Clustering helps develop the skill of speed reading. That is fixating the eyes at groups of words rather than word by word. However, it takes time to develop such skills, but surely it can be learned over time.

Speak reading may seem convenient, although in reality it is not. With speak-reading, there are more senses used that makes the reading activity more tiring. With speak-reading, one articulates the words to decode them and so uses the throat muscles and other muscles in the oral cavity. One tries to hear the words and so affects the mind to process the printed information. With speed reading, only the mind and eyes work.

Well off course a little help of the fingers as crutches could help facilitate the efficient reading, but nothing else is needed. One does not even have to be conscious of understanding the text. Simply, it is because understanding only comes upon completing the reading the task. That’s the same logic applied in testing comprehension, questions appear after the reading material, not before, not within but at the end of the text.

Speed reading is easy reading. It is in a veryvital study and thinking skill that college students need to master. Reading is not an innate ability, it is a skill. So is speed reading, it can be learned, it can be developed and it can be applied in any discipline required for a college student reader to learn. One needs to step up, upon learning how speed reading could help increase comprehension, enhance vocabulary and so enrich one’s knowledge.

I still have to prove to my students how the theory on reading speed and comprehension really matter by giving them more reading tasks in increasing difficulties.But with the task at hand to read a book, the requirement adds to the challenge. Check this video to help you get through that demanding reading task:

What hope do we have for these children who will spend 12+ years of education?

While I wrote of the impact of K-12 on tertiary education in the Philippines, it is interesting to reexamine the positions I asserted and the suggestions I gave within the context of postcolonial world order and the promotion of national interest. Over the unnoticed dark cloud of hegemony in global education, Phillippine educators and advocates of nationalistic and culturally relevant education should be able to see the silver lining to provide the utmost quality of education for the Filipino students over the quantity of time spent in it the extended program across curriculum.

First, the Department of Education (DepEd) had made a sound and informed decision to adapt the K+12 program as an effort to align it to global standards. DepEd was able to clarify and justify this principled decision as to its costs and benefits to the government and the public, with a sound framework and rational perspectives. Local education stakeholders, then should commit their support to the program and to guard that its thrusts be realized as formulated. While the program framework guarantees to abide by the constituonal definition of  an educated Filipino, this interest must be strongly promoted and protected since the program is a willful subjection to existing hegemonoy in global education.

I am reading hegemony coming from a strong global emphasis on the number of years on basic education. The trend which resulted from the craftiness of countries of political and economic power imposes submission of other countries to some forms of international accords. In this situation, we have to restructure our educational system without abandoning national interest. Education that is emancipating for the people must be grounded in the context of our culture. Further, it should operate to achieve the ideals of our nation for our promotion and development, beyond that of fulfilling international requirement.

The other hegemony I sense results from ignorance  on such kind of development. Politically, the public has not been made so aware of the costs and benefits of implementing the K12 program. Except of standardization in the context of global competetiveness, nothing more is being communicated to the public. The DepEd is positive in its gradual implementation starting this school year, but teachers have to be made aware of what the curriculum is like. Foremost, this should have been set, but the K12 discussion paper does not tell this. On the first year of its gradual implementation, what is to be expected?

By principle, the K12 program is fine-tuning Philippine basic education. This will be done by declogging the curriculum that it will be made more relevant and authentic to help graduates in their preparation for work integration. Yet, the hegemony of ignorance is causing misunderstanding, lack of confidence and anxiety particularly among college educators. It seems that the idea of gradual implementation is slowing the momentum for education stakeholders to sit and plan the curriculum. Maybe they are doing what they have to do, but it’s just that the curriulum is not ironed out yet.

This hegemony of not being so informed about the K12’s implication to college education manifests in the teacher’s and administrator’s anxiety. The consultative assembly of college education stakeholders, organized by the Commission on Higher Education, has not come up with its analysis or framework for action. One idea is that some  “general education subjects in the college curriculum, may be transferred and integrated to the basic education curriculum”. Another idea is the tantamount consequence of K12 implementation to cause enrollment gap or lag for two years.

To allay the fears of college educators, strategic planning should anticipate and rule out implications as to the very principle of K12. If the program will be strictly implemented, the extended curriculum should not be moving down general education subjects from the higher education curriculum. This move contradicts the concept of “declogging” and “fine tuning”. Doing so is a double jeopardy for college education which in most case has a curriculum that is aligned to existing international standards. K12 challenges the basic education curriculum, but it has implications to college education.

The most obvious consequence would that be of the 2-year lag. I have discussed possible strategies for this in previous post. Before the impact, higher education can initiate offering pre-baccalaureate programs to give chance to those whose number of educational years are short to qualify globally. With such strategy, college education becomes more responsive to the global situation. However, providing pre-baccalaureate program demands a great deal of change in the higher education curriculum.

General education teachers will be affected. In providing pre-baccalaureate program, GenEd subjects will be moved to that. The next thing GenEd faculty should do is to create new program offerings for the revised college curriculum. This action will be for short term. The college general education curriculum may be reverted to its previous program or adapt the revised one. However, the decision should consider several concerns.

What the basic education curriculum, particularly on the last 2 years of high-school education, are comptency-based courses that have practical rather than theoretical context. It is not ideal to move the GenEd subjects in those years because it contradicats the very principle of declogging and fine tuning. The aim of K12 is to develop competent graduates, with skills and knowledge for them to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors or immideately land a job. The idea of having college GenEd subjects does not make sense at all, because GenEd subjects in college are preparatory for college academics reformulated to have value in lifelong learning and industry integration.

Now that K12 will be implimented coming this school year, participation in the decision making and planning must be heightened to include concerned. This is foremost done by breaking the hegemony of ignorance and non-disclosure of vital information. If we were far behind having lesser years of basic education, what then should we do is to look forward and beyond of what we used to give Filipino children and youth, right now for we have done this before.

K12 is a transformative challenge, we should all be accepting this challenge and working for its successful implementation.

We create the world as we recreate ourselves with the tools we made and use.

Mobile computing is minicomputing with the cyberspace at the touch of your fingers. The trend has been charted decades ago, but underdeveloped countries are lagging and the price of getting connected remains unreachable for the masses. This keeps the divide between the technological have’s and have not’s to widen.

In theory, the gap is supposed to be dismal as time passes. But what experts failed to see is that of the speed of innovation and the attitude of market towards technological change, and the rate of population increase from the poor sector. Those who can not afford access to the latest technologies, undoubtedly lag behind. If we compare students from a state university who rely only on technology that they can access in school, with those students from private colleges and universities, the difference is clear.

I teach in a private college where the facilities provided to the students are well updated. It is also noticeable that my students can afford advanced mobile computing devices with access to the Internet. When I ask them to prepare for oral presentations, they amaze me with their creativity and savvy use of technology. While I could tell them theoretically, what they can do more with technology, all I got is the theory but I lag in the skills of optimizing technology.

I guess I need more time to learn and update myself on technological applications. If one time I show my students a skillfully crafted presentation, with full animation, transitions and hyperlink, next time around they can beat me into their works. We’ll at least I am trying to be a good model to my students. But my point is not all students in a developing country are like my students.

Generally speaking, many students in the rural areas don’t even have access to the Internet or have never had enough time to at least know how to turn on and off a PC.  Technology is for all as it is with basic education. The UNESCO’s drive of Education for All (EFA) aligned with the UN’s millenium Development goals, stresses the acquisition of new technological competencies for all students.

How many computers do our public schools have compared to the number of student? How many of those schools with computer laboratories have Internet access? How updated are those computers to provide the students efficient training and use in the limited time that they will be allowed to access such technology? How are students required to apply technology in their outputs? How adept are the teachers in public schools to teach students to maximize the use of technology in their studies?

When we compare public and private schools, the former are larger in number, but the latter has more potential in practically utilizing technology to advance student’s learning. I have no answers to the question I posed, but the public school administrators, the division heads, the Department of Education and the Commission and Higher education should have a database to answer these questions.

Now that the K12 will be implemented in the coming school year, what will students be taught about technology and how? Will those kids in the rural areas be asked to draw a computer, practice with carton keyboard, pull a rat’s tail or 50 or so students will watch a video on YouTube in a single PC if a projector is not available? Will the kids still be taught how to make rags, dustpans, parol, fruit salad, how to massage, pedicure toes or perm hair?

Surely there is  a need for vocational graduates, they should be certified for taking such course. But as we move forward, if we do want to move forward, the basic education curriculum for the K12 program should address the social need to ready the learners in mobile computing world. I remember then a dream to connect the Philippines with national broadband project that was thwarted from the beginning.