The Pretty Package

Thanks for the suit, Sam Abouhassan!

Succeeding through a Successful Image

The quarter is coming to a close for us loitering in this ePortfolio seminar, and inevitably there's now a mad scramble to haphazardly piece together a decent ePortfolio. Depending on what your ePortfolio is trying to package, you will probably have different content. Clearly though, there are some core elements that every ePortfolio posseses, as was brought to our attention by Dr. Scott's assignment for the week. The reminder was timely, because I certainly would've omitted an introduction on the first page. I was forming an "About Me" section, but I forgot that I needed an "About this Portfolio". Also, I was at a loss as to what to put on the index page and now I know. My ePortfolio is stronger for the intro.

Working with the portfolio as well as exploring a multitude of ePortfolios, I also realized that are other factors that can add power to your ePortfolio. For better or worse, one of them is the portfolio's look. Mentally sift through all the ePortfolios that you've visited over the quarter and note down what impressed you or turned you away. Personally, when I come across a beautifully made portfolio with graphics and banners, I tend to take it more seriously than a portfolio that is perhaps text only or obviously drafted by a novice. That's horrible to say, and I can already feel the stones of judgement pelting me in my deserving nogin. But think about it...

Let's say you're a manager in a business, and you're looking to hire. Two candidates walk in the door. Both have impressive credentials. Both are well qualified for the job. The first candidate, Ima Spiring, is perfectly groomed and very composed. She has a nice black leather brief case with shiny buttons, and a slick suit that is crisp and pressed. The second candidate, Willy Gethired, is in a tweed suit that has a few buttons missing and strange hairs on it. He hasn't shaven in a few days, there's the reminants of possibly week-0ld scrambled egg in his whiskers. He's got a strange and unsettling odor, and is missing more than a few teeth. Willy may be just as qualified (perhaps even more so) at the job he's applying for, but I doubt that you will pick him over Ima. Unfortunately, appearance can be a factor whether we like it or not.

This applies to our ePortfolios if we expect them to be used as viable portfolios. Obviously content is the foundation of a good ePortfolio. The prettiest wrapping paper in the world won't make an empty shoebox a great gift. But in the case of ePortfolios, its more than advantageous to package your great credentials in a professional manner than leaves an impression with its reviewer. Employers and schools have to glance over hundreds of applicants, and like any good student I'm sure they appreciate it when they are ENGAGED rather than ENRAGED.

All this being said, it's much easier to preach from my soap box than to actually get out there and do it. My own ePortfolio right now is a few scattered trinkets wrapped in wet newspaper, so I've got some work ahead of me. See you next week!

Two Kinds

Image borrowed from here.

With the quarter's close coming fast upon us, the time is near to figure out what classes we'll all be taking next quarter. For me, determining classes is an intricate process of balancing what's important to me about my class schedule.
I have obligations in life: school, work, friends, sports. I need to find classes that not only satisfy my long term scholastic goals, but also fit in with my short term time restrictions. For instance, I have work every weekday from 1-5. Every other day I need to have some free time in the evening or morning to go to Jiu Jitsu, and besides that I need time for my friends and family while they're awake and stuff is happening.
With all this in mind, I've decided to take the good majority of my classes online next quarter. Online classes offer me much needed flexibility. Other than that, the benefits can be argued both ways. When I tell people I'm taking online classes, I get one of two responses:

"Online Classes? That will be a breeze, you don't have to waste your time in class, you can do school whenever you want. Plus, open book tests? I might do that too."

"Online Classes!? I could never do that! You just keep putting it off and you can never bring yourself to actually do the work. Plus you don't have a teacher to help you and you have to do the reading. No thanks!"

I've already made it clear in previous posts that I'm a big fan of online classes, but an even bigger fan of the hybrid. It's untrue that you are necessarily deprived of teacher interaction just because your class is online. With today's technology there's always the option of personal messages and e-mail, and the teachers I've ran into online (for the most part) have been extremely involved. Then again that's not always the case, and there is something to be said for that "human touch" in a day and age where almost everything is becoming automated.
Are online classes easier? I'm not sure. For instance with that music class I've written extensively about, the tests were all open book. If you look at my quiz average for that class versus a physical english class, it was much higher for much less stress. Then again, I actually read all the material, and if the goal of a quiz is to make sure you're reading the material anyway... I think the online open book format accomplished that goal.
All this said, the reason there are two schools of thought, I believe, is because there are two generic factions of people. Some just will not do well in an online class. Faced with very long term deadlines, no distinct class time, and odd due dates/times, many people will just never get to their online class. It's not necessarily because they're lazy or apathetic, but they may lead overwhelmingly busy lives, and "online class" just becomes "more free time" to meet their other obligations.
The other faction seems to have the ability to treat an online class exactly the same as they do normal classes. They don't have a problem "attending class" regularly and keeping up with assignments. To them, there's no real difference between an online class and a classroom class.
I'm not really sure what causes this difference. Is it personality? Is it some past experience with technology? Regardless, I think that people who can take an online class and succeed display a distinct drive and motivation. I feel that some people don't take online classes seriously. A lot of students I talk to who give the first response of the two I provided above don't feel that an online class is legitimate. Because there's not four walls and a clock to stare at, an online class is somehow ... less. Yet these same people either don't try it, or fail if they do.
What do you think is responsible for the difference? Do you think online classes are indeed easier/harder? I'm confident that, in time, the outsider's view of online classes will change as drastically as the internet has changed the world.

Pride or Prejudice: The Real Deal with an Imaginary Existence

In my post two weeks ago, "Digital Existence", Dr. Scott left an intruiging question for me that I've been ducking until I could come up with an answer. Here's his question...

"...I wonder: if your brother was addicted to, say, reading, would it be any better. Reading is a solitary activity. It means you're not outside playing ball.... Or what about TV? I watched something on the order of eight hours per day growing up -- zero today. In retrospect I'm not sure it was really so bad for me. One reason I have a large vocabulary, for example, is that I'd watch news programs at an early age blah blah blah. So is it the unfamiliarity of video games which scares us, or is it really "different" from other activities altogether?"

Like I said in my post, my brother's lifestyle scared me but I didn't know why. In my post and in Dr. Scott's analysis of it, video games (and TV) were proven to be valuable educational tools. Is it really just the unfamiliarity of this new virtual universe that turned me apprehensive, or is there solid evidence that living a digital existence has negative consequences that outweigh its benefits? My thoughts on the subject are far from complete or adamant, but after mulling over these questions for about a week now, I think I've finally come up with an answer.

First, understand I recognize many benefits to video games. Also, I don't have a concrete opinion one way or the other. All I've figured out is why video games scare me so much, and why I think addiction to these video games is far, far worse and more frequent than addiction to say, books or even television.

--------

As living beings, we have needs. Many of the things we need are necessary for survival like air, food, water, heat... We also have social and mental needs. Our minds need to be challenged and stimulated. On some degree, we have a need to set goals and fufill them. We need to feel loved and wanted and accomplished. If these are taken away or not adequately met, our life spans are shortened, our mental sanity is comprimised, and generally we don't turn out to be "healthy" individuals. For the purposes of argument, lets simplify all needs into physical or intellectual needs.

First and foremost, our physical needs have to be met. If we're starving and shivering in some ditch in a desolate pasture, we're not really in a position to be "bored" because our lot in life consists solely of finding food. In our well-off society today, however, it can be argued that our physical needs are pretty well met. Since we're talking about education here, let's look specifically at students.

Our concern of the day isn't making that long pilgrimage to the pantry to hunt for the last Snickers bar. Once we find that Snickers bar, are we then content to relax on the couch, feeling that we've accomplished enough for one sunrise? No, we pursue other things. We go to school to study and try to get good grades. We aim for that promotion or that bonus at work. We dress well to catch the eye of that girl or boy in our English class.

This may all seem like I'm beating around the bush and skirting the issue. What the heck does any of this have to do with video games??? My belief is that video games, in excess, is destroying what sums up all these needs into one word: MOTIVATION.

As sober individuals with our basic physical needs more or less met, we are motivated by accomplishment rather than desperation. I want a promotion not just to pay for that extra packet of Ramen noodles from Costco, but also because I'm making something of myself. I'm moving forward in life. As a motivated individual, that feeling of progression is really important to me. I'm sure most of you can relate if you're in this seminar, after all you're all honors students.

But video games are like a drug. They can give you that feeling without giving you anything at all. In a virtual universe, your social needs can be met in a way that just might not be possible in the real world. You're a reputable commander. You've managed to find the biggest, baddest looking sword in the whole game. You've got all the friends that you could want, fighting dragons and ogres beside you, and they all recognize you as the greatest warrior that's ever lived. You've got riches beyond your wildest dreams, and the citizens of the country look up to you while your enemies fear you.

What's important to you now is getting that next level, scoring that new piece of equipment, exploring that cave you've never explored before. What a rush to be rapidly advancing in the ranks, cutting down all manner of mythical creatures in your path while real live players watch you do it from their own screens.

As you progress through the game you achieve and make gains in a manner most undoubtedly more exciting than, say, waiting for a promotion at a desk like the one I'm sitting at now. The way video games are now, they fufill the majority (if not all) of young children's social needs. Why do your agonizing homework for .01 more points in your grade point average, when you can be running cold steel through scantily clad sirens to find a mystical goblet? Why run all those laps to get 3rd place in the track meet when you have one more quest to turn in until you move up a level? Do you want friends? Make them online. Have relationships? The carefully drawn and fully mobile 3-D characters in video games these days probably surpass even the hottest of L.A. 10's, and you've already got a lot in common because you're doing the same quests and playing the same game.

Speaking only from personal experience, students have a remarkably hard time doing "what's better for them in the long run". This is exacerbated when your short term motivational thresholds are being met in some other, more pleasurable way. Like books and television, video games have collateral benefits. They will definately boost your speed reading. They will train you to preform moderately complex calculations in your head. They will improve your motor skills, your typing skills, maybe even your social skills and vocabulary. But kids aren't addicted to games because they're learning from them. Kids are addicted to them because in a stroke of their designers' genius, video games have managed to ENGAGE and MOTIVATE kids in a way that instructors in their schools and bosses at their jobs have never been able to. Go ask my little brother what's more important to him, his next 10 point math quiz or 100 imaginary gold pieces in his game's local currency? Video games punish us mildly for our flaws while rewarding us immensley and immediately for our achievements. Unfortunately, all those gold pieces and magical sets of armor instantly dissolve into static with the gentle push of a power button.