Currently, there are approximately 38,000 United States soldiers in Afghanistan, with an upcoming addition of over 17,000 in line with US President Barack Obama’s new strategy. Salerno is one of the U.S. bases in Afghanistan, along with Bagram. These soldiers hardly know anything about the country to which most of them were deployed to after transferring from Iraq. The soldiers stationed at Salerno know little about the place except that it is near Gardez and in the Paktia province.

A soldier as young as 19 years old, one of the youngest soldiers of the U.S. base at Camp Blessing in Kunar in eastern Afghanistan, has no inkling that the August 20 elections will be presidential. “Perhaps our officers already know that, but have not yet informed us,” he argues. Some of the soldiers in Afghanistan know a little bit more, such as why women wear the burqa and that during Ramadan, the local people do not eat or drink not a drop of water all day.

Most soldiers believe that their profession pays well, especially in a time of economic crisis in the US. The military is also an avenue for them to achieve education, some believe. Many U.S. military personnel joined the Army so that they can study, given the high cost of college education in the United States. At the U.S. base of Bagram, north of Kabul, there is even a counseling center for education where one can register for any distance education courses of study such as political science, law, computer science, history, and even Spanish.

Americans who chose to be soldiers find the job beneficial, in spite of the risk. And between Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the transferees find that US soldiers are more accepted by the local population in Afghanistan. They know the price at stake, but do they know the impending danger up ahead as Afghanistan is shaping up to be a more vicious war than the one in Iraq?

Image

Via USA TODAY

Distance learning, a fairly recent trend in educational systems, suffers from a basic handicap – communication between mentor and student. Not that this kind of learning system shuns the more vital and dynamic interaction between teacher and learner, it is just that the very nature of distance learning poses limitations in implementing the full and beneficial process of communication.

Learning is a dynamic concept that needs constant sharing of information, many responses, cooperative analysis, and collective conclusions and resolutions, even if it is just between a student and a teacher. The process of learning can be less interesting and mechanical if it only involves the transfer of information from the teacher and the corresponding receipt of it by the student, as well as the issuance of test questions by the teacher and the corresponding accomplishment of the tests by the student. The learning process becomes mechanical and impersonal.

Communication is a two-way process, most especially in the field of teaching and learning because of the imperative factor of student feedback. In the environment of classroom learning, there is more that can be accomplished over a given period of time since learning is a complex structure of information, feedback, and analysis.

Learning that happens inside a classroom, in the company of other students, becomes more vibrant and interesting because the element of interaction happens quicker and more frequently between student and teacher, and among students themselves – all under the same roof and within a specific time. Communication is more varied, complete, and richer. Because communication is more dynamic in non-distance learning environments, the goals of learning are met better and sooner because a big part of learning is analysis and synthesis.

Image

Via Technical and Vocational School Guide

Giving feedback is essentially the same whether it is done over a distance education system or personally in a face-to-face manner. The objective is the same, as well as the content of the feedback. Both strategies rely on the same fact that some feedback will be given and that the sharing of advice is both important and imperative. Both are a form of mentoring, and either one is considered personal communication.

The most apparent difference between the two methods is the manner by which the feedback will be given. The face-to-face feedback is considerably faster and more immediate than the feedback carried over a distance. The communication is completed at a quicker time because it takes the form of a conversation. The initial feedback can elicit a counter-response right away. More information is shared and filtered. A discussion between two people can occur right away. Whatever resolutions that have to be made can possibly be accomplished within the same session.

Feedback in distance learning set-up can be more formal, straight to the point, and stressing the most salient points right away. Whereas a face-to-face feedback communication may take a more circuitous route because of its very nature of being a conversation.

Over and above the feedback mechanism, a further challenge lies in the quality of instruction. No feedback is effective if education and information dissemination are poor.

Image

Via suite101

Distance education is a relatively new academic method and has been proving to be convenient and effective. Distance education is right in the center of a situation where technology and the Internet are the very ways to exist because most student cheating uses, in one way or another, technological methods such as the Internet where students copy and paste plagiarized information and pass them as test answers or term papers. As such, institutions of distance education have been making it their prime concern to address the issues of ethics and student assessment. A study conducted by Olt (2002) discusses strategies for minimizing academic dishonesty in online student assessment.

The old and tired approach of addressing student dishonesty through values-formation alone does not work. It has not been proven to work on a widespread scale. It is a Herculean effort to produce students who do not want to cheat, in the general scheme of things. Meeting the challenge of curbing the ever-present problem of academic dishonesty lies in the hands of academic personnel, as it is a raging issue that the academic community must pour their collective efforts to address (Abbott, Siskovic, Nogues, & Williams, 2000).

This tremendous effort, though, necessitates the existence and considerable control of proactive and watchful academic personnel who can tirelessly check on cheating incidences. Also, this challenge does not only lie within the realm of instruction. The entire academic community should be involved in this movement to quell and quash student dishonesty. For starters, the centers of learning should make sure that instructors are capable enough to conduct lively, interesting, dynamic, and mentally challenging classes so that students do not fall into the rut of boredom and routine. This is highly imperative so that the students do not regard class requirements as merely a compliance to get a class grade. A feeling of compliance leads to the students’ attempt to have an easy way out via cheating.

Most importantly, the anti-cheating controls should firmly be in place within all aspects of the learning experience. The challenge is to create course materials and assessments that are not vulnerable to cheating. Technology will play a significant role in this effort.

Image 1
Image 2

Via Cheating in Online Student Assessment: Beyond Plagiarism