Ritasha Radhika Raj Bachelor of Science Nutrition Science American Samoa |
Adalberto João Francisco Doctor of Business Management Harbor and Port Management Angola |
Arrim T. Nunes Rodrigues Cruz da Paixão Bachelor of Science Environmental Science Angola |
Leonel Adrián Moresino Bachelor of Sports Science Sports Science Argentina |
Juan Ramón Recalde Bayon Bachelor of Science Mechanical Enginee ring Argentina |
Ricardo Raul Rodriguez Master of Anthropology Human Behavior Argentina |
Sona Mammadova Bachelor of Management Hotel Management Azerbaijan |
Steeven Gleny Apaza Hinojosa Doctor of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Bolivia |
Tjiliga Bolatotswe Letsholo Bachelor of Science Land Surveying Botswana |
Dorcas Basetsana Maripe-Perera Doctor of Management Disaster Management Botswana |
Siaka Millogo Doctor of Project Management Project Management Burkina Faso |
Edetson Justin Millo Master of Science Construction Management Cameroon |
Abed El Maati Hussein Bachelor of Science Computer Enginee ring Canada |
Thomas Torok Doctor of Philosophy Human Nutrition Canada |
Celliers van der Merwe Bachelor of Science Psychology China |
Juliana Uribe Valdivieso Master of Public Health Epidemiology Colombia |
Jose Antonio Camen Cardenas Bachelor of Science Project Management Colombia |
Elba Lucena Jiménez Cortés Bachelor of Science Education Colombia |
Armando Arboleda Riascos Doctor of Science Education Colombia |
Ariel Gil Martinez Bachelor of Science Automotive Enginee ring Colombia |
Muteba M.B De La Haye Doctor of Philosophy Coaching and Leadership Colombia |
Miguel Oscar Bolaños Gutierrez Doctor of Management Leadership and Talent Management Colombia |
Cristhian Felipe Osorio Ordoñez Bachelor of Science Electrical Enginee ring Colombia |
Jose Agustin Solano Redondo Master of Business Adm inistration Finance Colombia |
Wilson Eduardo Romero Palacios Doctor of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Colombia |
Hector Javier Castro Cruz Doctor of Philosophy Education Colombia |
Edwin Alexis Calvo Villegas Master of Public Health Public Health Colombia |
Cayetano Jiménez Munive Master of Public Adm inistration Public Management for Development Colombia |
José María Jiménez Munive Doctor of Science Business Administration Colombia |
Ahmed Said Mdahoma Bachelor of Business Adm inistration Accounting Comoros |
Jose Rafael De Luna Sánchez Master of Arts Latin American Literature Dominican Republic |
Nelson Rafael Rosario Cordero Doctor of Philosophy Political Science Dominican Republic |
Rosario Ynmaculada Cáceres Tejada Doctor of Science Clinical Psychology Dominican Republic |
Aheiry Ariel Sánchez Bachelor of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Dominican Republic |
Rafael Augusto Lora De Los Santos Doctor of Philosophy Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching Dominican Republic |
Gabriela Hidalgo García Bachelor of Business Management Business Management Ecuador |
Jesus Alberto Loor Loor Doctor of Education Rese arch in Higher Education Ecuador |
Carmen Verónica Bósquez García Doctor of Science Environmental Enginee ring Ecuador |
Héctor Antonio Vélez Andrade Doctor of Science Environmental Enginee ring Ecuador |
Carlos Fernando Granda Cuaycal Bachelor of Science Mechanical Enginee ring Ecuador |
Ximena del Rocio Bustos Zapater Bachelor of Psychology Psychology Ecuador |
Jéssica Herrera Salgado Doctor of Science Public Health Ecuador |
Irving Antonio Iraheta Ortiz Bachelor of Science Electronic Enginee ring El Salvador |
Job Antonio Ndong Esono Maye Doctor of Science Public Finance Equatorial Guinea |
Dfelipe Ncogo Nsue Mangue Bachelor of Political Science Political Science Equatorial Guinea |
Agatha Adhiambo Osiro Master of Education Educational Administration Ethiopia |
Grace Araba Abrahams Bachelor of Science Nutrition Science Ghana |
Richmond Acheampong Doctor of Philosophy Journalism Ghana |
Jose Ramiro Martinez Villatoro Master of Business and Economics Economics Guatemala |
Claudia Lorena Reyes Castellanos Bachelor of Science Biochemistry and Microbiology Guatemala |
Melagreta Pearce Ass ociate of Comm unication Communication Guyana |
Juan Pablo Amador Posadas Master of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Honduras |
Juan Ramon Castellanos Mayorquin Bachelor of Business Adm inistration Accounting and Audit Honduras |
Boakye Abraham Bachelor of Science Public Health Italy |
Ben Gatungu Mwangi Bachelor of Science Electrical Enginee ring Kenya |
Kodikaragama A. Tharindu Nalaka Master of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Kuwait |
Jihad Achkar Doctor of Science Architecture Lebanon |
Joseph Ruhamya Bachelor of International Development International Development Liberia |
Richard Wah Sio Sr. Master of Public Adm inistration Public Administration Liberia |
Binala Baziwell Ntchentche Bachelor of Arts Theology Malawi |
José Antonio Gómez Villa Doctor of Science Foreign Trade and Customs Mexico |
Alma Angelina Vidales Cavazos Master of Philosophy Philosophy Mexico |
Marco Lambertini Jiménez Bachelor of Business Adm inistration International Relations Mexico |
Emanuel de Jesus Neto Bomba Bachelor of Sociology Community Development Mozamb ique |
Rafael Luís Fernandes Benny Doctor of Philosophy Clinical Psychology Mozamb ique |
Dácia Alzira de Augusto Correia Doctor of Science Environmental Science Mozamb ique |
Virgilio Rommel Silva Munguía Doctor of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Nicaragua |
Anih Victor Chukwuemeka Bachelor of Business Adm inistration Business Administration Nigeria |
Nooraddin Salih Wasman Koshnaw Doctor of Business Adm inistration Business Management Norway |
Felix Benjamin Adrianzen Huaman Master of Science Transportation and Highway Enginee ring Peru |
Oscar Valerio Almiron Porroa Bachelor of Science Mechanical Enginee ring Peru |
Larry Sandhaus Yañez Bachelor of Science Industrial Enginee ring Peru |
Lucero Cristina E. Schmidt Alvarez Doctor of Public Health Public Health Peru |
Edwin Mauricio Zaga Bachelor of Science Civil Enginee ring Peru |
Ramiro Paucar Villa Doctor of Public Health Public Health Peru |
Nelson Manawag Mejia, Jr. Doctor of Philosophy Maritime Affairs Philippines |
Angel Rafael Barreiro Doctor of Philosophy Integrative Health Sciences Puerto Rico |
Abigail Cruz Garcia Doctor of Science Neuropsychology Puerto Rico |
Patrick Ujwiga Anguru Doctor of Philosophy Education Rwanda |
Luís Cassandra Pires dos Santos Doctor of Philosophy Business Admin. and Strategic Planning Säo Tomé and Príncipe |
Thomas Bernard Aruna Bachelor of Science Logistics Sierra Leone |
Mildred Patricia Dors Master of Science Business Management Suriname |
Jill Vanessa U Kasanwidjojo Bachelor of Science Environmental Sci |
Sentumbwe Nakkazi Damalie Doctor of Education Economics and Education Uganda |
Martin Muhire Master of Public Health Public Health Uganda |
Engoku Bernard Nicholas Bachelor of Public Adm inistration Public Administration and Management Uganda |
Nadiia Butler Bachelor of Sports Science Sports Science Management UAE |
Augusto Muca Valentim Master of Science Computer Science United Kingdom |
Maria Magdalena Lorenzo Rio Doctor of Education Curriculum Des ign USA |
Nicole Wilhelmina Lockward Mendez Bachelor of Science Nutrition and Dietetics USA |
Kengue Ndjile Marcelo Bachelor of Science Information Systems USA |
Josephine Ocran Master of Business Adm inistration Human Res ource Management USA |
Kalu Chika Imaga Bachelor of Science Instrumentation Enginee ring USA |
Jose Ignacio Diaz Rettali Doctor of Philosophy Finance and Economy USA |
Allan Alberto Canales Almendares Ass ociate of Science Electrical Enginee ring USA |
Banda Aaron Doctor of Philosophy Health Science Education Zamb ia |
This paper is an attempt to
deconstruct the concept
of security which has been by
tradition exclusively confined
to the military realm. We make
evident that security takes
into consideration a number
of fields and that its major
concern is the human person.
In addressing security in this
work, we do not only refer
to the security of states –the
concept of national security–,
but also to that of individuals
–human security–. Governments
should integrate in their
security agendas not only
their own security, but also
the security of their nationals.
Accordingly, this implies that
they should protect their citizens
against any threat to human
life. In other words, governments
or the people they
rule do not merely face military
threats from other states;
they are as well endangered by
other threats to their security,
these threats are debated in
this research paper. We do
not mean that military issues
are not to be conceptualized within security frameworks,
but we do contend that they
are not the unique issues to be
securitized. Indeed, this paper
displays that other issues
should be securitized.
Global security is the process
that consists of preventing
the break-out of military
conflicts –with preventive
diplomacy–, the mitigation of
non-state military violence; it
is focused on environmental
degradation, arms control
issues etc. in order to safeguard
global peace and human
security. Global security is put
in place through diplomatic
resolutions, peaceful settlements
of armed conflicts,
or by sending peacekeeping
forces to areas stifled with
military conflicts, or even
by protecting people against
environmental threats. Global
security has also something to
do with the respect of human
rights everywhere in the world
and as well the promotion and
proliferation of democracy as
a political system that guarantees
the individual rights of
citizens.
Another aspect of global
security is the global-regional
security mechanism between
the UN Security Council and
regional and sub-regional
organizations.
A new understanding of the
concept of security has been
developing in the 21st century
(Nanda, 2009). He contends
that the need to redefine the
traditional concept of security
was eloquently developed
in 2003 by the Commission
on Human Security, in their
report Human Security Now
(Nanda, 2009). The writer
explains that the Commission
co-chaired by Sadako Ogato,
former UN High Commissioner
for Refugees, and Amartya
Sen, Nobel laureate in
economics, was launched by
the former UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan at the 2000
Millennium Summit and was
recognized as the initiative of
the Japanese government. The
new concept of security was
different from the traditional
one in that it aimed at assuring
the security of people. According
to Nanda (2000, p.335)
the Commission indicated the
following:
“The security debate has
changed dramatically since
the inception of state security
advocated in the 17th century.
According to that traditional
idea, the state would monopolize
the rights and means
to protect its citizens. But
in the 21st century, both the
challenges to security and its
protectors have become more
complex. The state remains
the fundamental purveyor. Yet
it often fails to fulfill its security
obligations—and at times
has even become a source of
threat to its own people.
That is why attention must
now shift from the security of
the state to the security of the
people —to human security.”
The Commission’s emphasis
is on the enablement of
people, which can help get
them ready against severe
present and future dangers,
both societal and natural.
The Commission sustains
that the traditional view of
state security has expanded in
the 21st century to also encompass
human security (Nanda,
2009). The emphasis on human
security is to make sure that
adequate focus is directed
to address the real causes
of insecurity from several
individuals around the world
who suffer. Nuclear weapons
represent a serious cause
of people’s insecurity, and
weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) –chemical, biological
and nuclear– are apparently
among the main dangers to
state security (Nanda, 2009).
The possession of nuclear
weapons has basically three
goals: (1) deterrence of
intended nuclear attack; (2)
deterrence of most important
conventional war; and (3)
compensation for possible
inadequacies in nonnuclear
forces, including deterrence
or response to attacks with
chemical or biological weapons
(Watkinson, 1999).
Neither China nor Russia
would currently consider reducing
their nuclear weapons,
while they would like the
United States to do it (Watkinson,
1999). Accordingly, the
author believed that it would
be wiser for the United States
to keep up a strong military
deterrent. An example can
be provided, when the Iraqi
government in the Gulf War
attributed their decision not to
use bioweapons and chemical
agents against the United
States for the reason that they
knew they could undergo a
nuclear counter-attack by the
USA (Watkinson, 1999).
According to the author’s
views, it seems to us that
possessing nuclear technology
if not nuclear weapons
is overwhelmingly crucial in
this new context of international
affairs. The acquisition
of nuclear arsenals seems to
be significantly important
for the reasons of deterrence
because a state can decide to
attack another state when it
knows that it cannot fear any
threatening reprisals. Today
possessing nuclear weapons
is somewhat a certain guarantee
of security not to attack
but to retaliate. Therefore, it
might be argued that conventional
weapons are good but
not enough to ensure some
total protection if an attack is
carried out. However, it is not
documented that a nuclearweapon
state (NWS) ever used
preemptive measures against
a non-nuclear weapon-states
(NNWS). In other words, a
nuclear war has never been
waged; this is why states are
making efforts to avoid such
a disaster because as Gorbarchev
said in 1988, a nuclear
war would have no winner,
nor looser, it will have as only outcome the annihilation of
mankind (Ó Tuathail et al.,
1998, p.98).
In the meantime, states with
nuclear arsenals know that it
would be a mistake to eliminate
all their nuclear weapons.
The point at this stage is to
have dominant nuclear deterrent
to dissuade other states
to attack them as in the above
mentioned case of the United
States. For example, North Korea
has a nuclear arsenal but is
aware that if it ever launches
a nuclear warhead to the
United States, it will witness a
tremendous military response
from America. In addition,
deterrence is a good strategy
to ensure that a nuclear war is
unlikely to wage.
Rinn (2013) contends that
there are several issues that
influence the decision of
a state to develop nuclear
weapons, but generally speaking,
today there are basically
two types of nuclear-weapon
states: global political actors
and issue-specific possessors,
that is, the five NPT nuclearweapon
states (NWS) and
those owning nuclear weapons
and are not parties to the
NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty
on Nuclear Disarmament).
(See Table 1)
By tradition, the questions of
global security have basically
been centered on the military
and national security issues.
This means that governments
based their security agendas
on the protection of their territory
in ensuring the integrity
of their land, the protection of
civilians against any foreign
military aggression. What
we mean is that dealing with
international security is huge
and that traditionally, dealing
with it would be about the military and issues related to
territorial integrity (military
viability), the ability for states
to ensure one’s sovereignty.
However, we come to
discover that any single threat
to human life represents a
problem of security. We think
about water scarcity that is
becoming gradually serious.
We have to mention as well
the problem of population
pressures that is a threat as
more people on the planet will
pose a problem to agriculture,
which might result in food
scarcity. Accordingly, we cannot
solve problems of global
security –climate change,
environmental threat, terrorism,
peace building etc.– with
isolationism because of the
so-called national security
interests. A good example on
that matter has been COP 21
on global warming, a climate
change conference held in
Paris between November and
December 2015.
Buzan (1991) talked about
the five sectors defining
security, which are political,
military, economic, societal
and environmental. As Buzan
pointed out, these five fields of
security do not work in isolation
from one another. Each
addresses a specific domain
comprised within a security
problématique, but all of them
are intertwined together with
a strong connection. We come
to the realization that security
is not just about military issues,
but also comprises other
fields like economic security,
environmental security, health
security, food security, community
security, political security
and physical security (Bosold
and Werthes, 2005).
Terrorism is also a mounting
issue in international affairs
and an aspect of security that
requires military attention as
two basic doctrines to fight
terrorism are usually considered:
counterterrorism and
terrorism preemption. There
are also other approaches such
as appeasement, but no matter
the doctrine that we choose to
address the issue of terrorism,
we need a deep involvement of the military, to some extent,
the police. A number of possibilities
are explored to combat
terrorism in the United States:
they can stress the significance
of law enforcement function,
the crucial role of the
intelligence community, the
employment of diplomacy or
the prerequisite to engage in
military actions against nonstate
violence and the sponsors
of terrorist groups abroad
(Sloan, 2000). The reluctance
to employ the military option
to reactive missions, much
less in preemptive actions, is
the combination of an essential
omission in enhancing an
important capability to attack
terrorists abroad (Sloan, 2000).
The writer pointed out the
following question: is terrorism
an act of war or an act of
criminality? The answer to this
question will determine the
doctrine that will be developed
to address it (Sloan, 2000).
To deal with global security
has brought us to consider
peace and conflict resolution.
What is peace? For the
common people peace is the
absence of warfare, or violent
conflict. This definitional approach
to peace is not bad, but
is limited. In effect, the concept
of peace goes beyond that
common perception. Peace
can also be considered as the
absence of every forms of violence.
These categorizations
of peace have a label in
international relations (IR):
negative and positive peace.
These terms were first coined
by Galtung, in the Editorial
to the primary edition of the
Journal of Peace Research
in the year 1964, (Grewal,
2003). The history associated
with the distinction between
positive and negative peace
stems from the 1950s wherein
peace research was too deeply
dedicated towards direct
violence, such as warfare and
assault and was dominated by
North Americans. The Peace
Research Institute of Oslo and
the Journal of Peace Research
were a source of fresh understanding
in peace theory
(Grewal, 2003).
Galtung’s chief argument is
that an adequate understanding
of violence is a prerequisite
in order to understand
and define peace. Peace is not
simply an absence of immediate
violence (negative peace)
but as well absence of structural
violence (positive peace).
Structural violence originates
from violence in the structure
of society, rather than direct
violence, that is generated by
coercion (Grewal, 2003).
In this perspective, to
discuss peace journalism and
peace education brings us to
consider along with Galtung
that to argue something about
peace journalism, something
has to be argued about peace.
To argue something about
peace, something has to be
argued about conflict and its
resolution. To argue about
conflict resolution, something
has to be argued about
the United States’ profound
participation in numerous
international conflicts (Galtung,
2015).
Conflict resolution is a
major field in IR as the world
has turned out to be drowned
in a range of conflicts which
constitutes a significant
challenge for the world community.
Now, what is international
conflict resolution?
Wanis-St. John and Ghais
(2014) define international
conflict resolution as that
body of knowledge, practices,
rules and organizations that
strive to prevent, reduce and
transform potential or actual
violent conflict within and
between states.
In short, we contend that
global security is the major
dilemma of the world community.
A number of challenges
are faced by the world community
in actuality; we debate
these challenges. We discuss
five main fields of security: (I)
Armament and Disarmament,
(II) Environmental Security,
(III) Global and Regional Security,
(IV) Military Strategies
and Terrorism, and (V) Peace
and Conflict Resolution.
REFERENCES.
Bosold, D. and Werthes, S. (2005). Human Security
in Practice: Canadian and Japanese Experiences. Internationale
Politik und Gesellschaft, retrieved from: www.library.fes.de. | Buzan,
B. (1991).”New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-first
Century”. International Affairs, 67.3, p. 432-433. | Galtung, J. (2015).
“Peace Journalism and Reporting on the United States”. The Brown
Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 22 (1), p. 321-332. | Grewal, B.S. (2003).
“Johan Galtung: Positive and Negative Peace”. Retrieved from:
www.activeforpeace.org. | Nanda, V.P. (2009). “Nuclear Weapons,
Human Security, and International Law”. Denver Journal of International
Law Policy Vol. 37 No3, p.331-350. | Ó Tuathail, G., Dalby,
S. & Routledge, P. (1998). The Geopolitics Reader. London and New
York: Routledge. | Rinn, A.S. (2013). “A Behavioral Economic Approach
to Nuclear Disarmament Advocacy”. Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law [VOL 46: p. 969-1002]. | Sloan, S. (2000). Beating
International Terrorism: An Action Strategy for Preemption
and Punishment. Alabama: Revise Edition, Air University Press,
Maxwell Air Force Base. | Wanis-St. John, A. and Ghais, S. (2014).
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.: American
University. | Watkinson, K. (1999). The Post-Cold War Era and the
Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy. Retrieved from: http://
web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/atomic/hnuclear.html.
There are times when a
student has a hard time
writing an essay, because the
ideas just do not flow from the
mind. The student does not
know what to write.
So what can a student do to
fill the mind with lots of ideas
to write about?
It is important to realize first
that the mind processes what
we study at night, while we are
sleeping. So it is very helpful
to study every day, even if it
is 10 minutes. When we study
every day, the mind is making
many more connections
between what we study and
the life we live. Therefore, it is
much easier to talk and write
about what we study because
it is more a part of our life.
There are 3 simple things
that help a student to easily
write essays....
1 Study at least 10 minutes
per day. It is like giving
little snacks of knowledge to
your mind. Then, it will be
easier to write the assignments
because your mind
assimilates and develops new
ideas at night, when you are
sleeping.
2 Talk about what you are
studying with another person,
you can talk with a friend,
a relative, a neighbor, or even a
person in a store. The moment
you try to explain what you are
studying; your mind is stimulated
to produce and organize
thoughts and ideas. All of a
sudden, your mind will have
the ideas ready to write in your
essay. Then you can write your
essay faster. So whenever you
get stuck and do not know
what to write, the simplest and
best solution is to talk with
someone about what you are
trying to write about.
3 One easy way to study at
least 10 minutes per day is
to watch videos on the internet
about your course, like from
Youtube.com. Videos are a great
way to keep your mind active
on the study material. You can
watch one 10-minute video
each day related to your field of
study. You can prepare assignments
based on videos too.
Keep studying every
day and try to explain what
you are studying to another
person. You will find essays
easier to write, because your
mind is continually organizing
the ideas.
When we talk about evaluation,
the moments
when we were able to obtain
the recognition of what we
were doing come to our mind.
We also think about the less
fortunate moments and we
get all the reflections of what
was good and what shouldn’t
be from the school system, to
who was good teacher or our
mistakes.
The evaluation is still a difficult
dish to digest because it
always involves the unknown,
it is always the search in our
thinking for a response that
may not be well structured
and we must be able to answer
what is part of knowledge or
what is part of our know about
experiences.
We always ask ourselves
when we have to do to study
something: why the evaluation
must be anguish of the
unforeseen. The answer is
something is malfunctioning
because it must be an
experience like the education
system in Finland. In Finland,
recognized for its excellent results in education, it happens
that the student chooses
the subjects when he feels he
has the skills to carry out that
learning. In the vast majority
of countries, the Curriculum
is designed so that these or
those subjects are taken now;
the student can choose certain
optional subjects but not the
base curriculum.
In the twentieth century
we already had two schools
of thought regarding teaching
learning: Behaviorism and
Constructivism. Behaviorism
is based on the measurement
of what the student should
know; it focuses on testing
and is represented by Educational
Technology.
Constructivism considers
that the student for all learning
has prior knowledge that
must relate and that education
is a function achieved by
socialization. Education must
be to insert the individual into
a society and for him to solve
problems of that society or
provide solutions to a good
coexistence.
Educational technology allowed
the massive education
that was necessary at a time
in our history when the two
great wars ended: the First and
Second World War to enter the
production to all those who
had the fortune to return.
Nowadays the society is different
but there are many who
find it easier to evaluate items
that to analyze or to structure
documents and more still to
analyze what the document
says because they have to see
if the student has a series of
skills or not and still more how
they’ll achieve them.
Regarding Educational
Technology says the work of
Anijovich:
“It is distressing to know
that thousands of children
and young people have, in
the 21st century, their learning
legitimated by numerical
data, by arithmetic averages,
by statistics, and that this is
considered (naively) a precise
and fair evaluation”. Anijovich
and others (2010, p. 78).
The traditional beliefs of
evaluation where it is regarded
as an instrument of information
and control, giving great
importance to correct and
simple answer, have to end.
The student knows in the
society in which we live that
this form of evaluation is not
fair but he has no choice but
to accept it or he will not do
what he wants.
Nowadays is considered as
the literate, mathematical, scientific,
technological and visual
domain is a strange mixture
an evaluation of questions and
short answers or repetition of
scientific texts.
Knowledge is something
more:
“...when the new learning
of the students is based
on previous learning and a
network is established that
contains the new learning and
what they already knew, and
between them they enrich
each other, when what is
taught and learned is interesting
and challenging, and when
these lessons are perceived
as affordable...” Anijovich and
others (2010, p.40).
Also in the evaluation we
have to consider the abilities
of each human being, it can’t
be the same for all and consider
it fair:
“...each student, interactively,
discovers the world
in its own way, different and
unique. But he apprehends
the world in a richer and more
challenging way, with the
greater socialization, and the
cooperation of the adults who
are mediators in his knowledge”.
Anijovich and others
(2010, p. 78).
Piaget and Vygotsky
consider the educator as a mediator
in the construction of
knowledge and emphasize the
importance of reciprocal trust
between educator and pupil.
The graph presented on this
page is significant because this
is the case with education in
many schools, universities and
training centers. Here is exemplified
with animals but reality
overcomes this fiction.
Then there is talk of school
failure and governments are
doing wonders for students
to achieve degrees instead
of enriching the education
system with what has always
been they Achilles heel: the
evaluation. For there to be an
evaluation that corresponds to
the human beings that we are
nowadays and to the society
that we need to have, we must
reform education in terms of
the training of teachers and
professionals who teach.
School failure has many
factors that make it up: the
economic and social context;
the family as a socio-cultural
level in terms of dedication
and expectations; the educational
system and the student
in terms of their interest, skills
and participation.
In Constructivism it is
considered that the teacher or
professional who exercises as
a teacher, the teacher is the
companion of the learner, so
the evaluation is mediation.
In the mediating evaluation
the student must receive
feedback.
When we talk about feedback,
we must consider the
way to do it: in which way to
indicate to the student what
should be improved.
In schools or educational
centers such as universities
there is a difference when
education is face-to-face or
online.
In face-to-face relations
there is a face-to-face relationship,
but in the virtual
one, a photo, a telephone does
not transmit non-verbal
language.
In all education as mediation we must consider
that the other person is
a human being who deserves
respect for what the feedback
should consider that aspect.
The form of adequate feedback
is to say to the student he
did this and this is fine but here
we can improve it in this way.
At Atlantic International
University (AIU) we have
adult students who may
have a long time of not being
studying. What happens with
mediation? We must consider:
1. The time of accommodation
of learning according to
Piaget and its socialization in
the new society, according to
Vygotsky.
2. Current knowledge becomes
obsolete every 5 years.
3. The student has to learn
the digital language in which
he is not literate.
Given these factors that
occurs in all adults mediation
has to consider the emotional
aspect a lot.
In the mediating evaluation
we have the competences,
a concept that has received
different meanings. We will
take the concept as a holistic
relationship; here the general
attributes such as knowledge,
attitudes, values and abilities
are united; all attached to the
context.
The other forms of competence
are: the ability to act in
front of a type of situation and
as a list of tasks.
The training of competences
involves a change in the
relationship of teachers with
knowledge, in their way in the
Chair, their identity and their
own professional skills.
To create a system of evaluation
that is competences as
a holistic relationship, it is
necessary to adopt a flexible
form in terms of programming,
to privilege the solution
of problems and to expand
the resources and teachinglearning
materials.
The skills to consider in
a mediating evaluation for
holistic competences are the
following:
1. Presentation of the work
whatever it may be.
2. Scientific concepts
handled.
3. Problem presented.
4. Application or solution to
some problem.
5. Use of presentation
techniques. (There are 5
techniques to present works in
science)
6. The use of quotations
because the works may not
be intentional copies. The
student didn’t learn the value
of the work of others.
Student may not have
competencies in terms of presenting
papers because he is
focused on a banking education,
which was what he was
given as a skill.
It will cost him to change
the type of thought to draw
inferences so his accommodation
in that aspect is slower,
what you would have to see is
other skills he probably has.
It is convenient to ask him
what he likes to do in order
to discover his skills and
thus increase his self-esteem;
remember that he doesn’t have
the scaffolding that Vygotsky
talks about because he is not
together with his peers.
All aspects of education,
nowadays, can be resolved;
the problem of evaluation is
dragging on education because
it is very difficult for us
to learn from Finland and we
would need a lot of economic
resources for each student to
study the subjects when he
has the right competences.
The online universities
solve the problem that we
mentioned because we can tell
the student you can send this
work now or you can send it
when you see fit.
The open Curriculum of
AIU allows a mediating and
competency evaluation.
Go ahead discover your
competitions!
Go ahead don’t leave
your studies!
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Anijovich, Rebeca y otros (2010). La Evaluación
Significativa, Argentina: Paidós. | Ausubel, D. y Joseph
Novak (2009). Psicología Educativa, México: Trillas. | Díaz Barriga
Arceo, F. y Geraldo Hernández Rojas (2010). Estrategias
docentes para un aprendizaje significativo, una interpretación
constructivista, México: Trillas.