The
best of my teachers pushed my comfort zones and tested my ability to learn,
stretching my imagination and my intellectual capacities, and emboldening me to
be open to experimenting. The classroom as a site of experimentation and new
learning however is increasingly becoming rare, ironically in a global environment
that has latched on to the buzzwords of innovation, creativity, and
experimentation.
An
increasing threat globally to the spirit of education as experimentation and
new learning is the reduction of education to the dictates of a homogeneous mass
market.
A mass
market-based logic conceptualizes education as a commodity measured on fairly
homogeneous sets of criteria applied uncritically. Excellence, innovation,
multiculturalism, global outlook—these are the buzzwords for most universities
catering to a global market, with little room for differentiation. Each of these
terms, excellence, innovation, multiculturalism, global outlook, otherwise
admirable markers of aspiration, are increasingly measured in narrow ways
through standardized metrics, paradoxically limiting the spaces for creative
explorations and innovations.
One
of the drawbacks of market-based thinking is its reduction of education to a
narrow set of metrics that might not always be the best indicators of quality
education. The value of education lies in the continued development of pedagogy
and learning experiments that offer students opportunities to grow
intellectually, hold them to high global standards, and give them ample scope
for putting into practice the concepts learned in the classroom. Some or many
of these experiments might push student expectations, push students to engage
with new materials and new methods, and most importantly, push their comfort
zones through debate and dialogue.
Exposing
students to the unfamiliar is a rare opportunity that education brings. Such learning
however, is hindered when students start thinking of themselves as consumers
who are purchasing education as a commodity. Cost-benefit analyses of any
product are predicated upon an understanding of the metrics of quality,
weighing these metrics, and then applying these metrics to the product or
service being evaluated. To the extent that a student is in a classroom to
learn, it is important to acknowledge that a student might not be fully aware
of the various metrics of quality on which her or his learning ought to be
evaluated. Similarly, to the extent that a student is simply concerned about
her or his grades, he/she is unlikely to weigh heavily other metrics of quality
beyond the ingredients that she/he considers are essential to securing a good grade.
Increasingly
across the globe, education has been reduced to the principles of the market
and students have been reduced to consumers. This reductionist approach to
education as a consumer market has trained students well to conduct
cost-benefit analyses in evaluating the value of a module mostly optimized in
relationship to the grades to be secured, but has not really opened them up to
exploring new opportunities, new thinking, and new ways of being.
Naturally
in this environment, students want to figure out the best ways of scoring a good
grade and the tools that would equip them to score a better grade. New
experiments in the classroom and new methods of teaching may be intellectually
challenging and uncertain, and thus not be seen as being of value to student
learning as seen by the students. Moreover, students may refrain from
experimenting as this might threaten the grade they are likely to receive in
the classroom.
One
area where such commoditization is in full display is in the prevalence of student
feedback as a metric for evaluating the quality of instruction. To simply and
solely rely on student feedback I argue reduces education to a form of customer
service, where students are reduced to customers and teachers reduced to being service
providers the sole objective of whose teaching is student satisfaction. The
intellectual capacity of students, trained in to assess the value of a module
in terms of its ability to deliver a better grade for them, is reduced to a set
of narrowly defined expectations that are overly grade-based. Teachers, instead
of seriously considering ways of challenging students to intellectually
rigorous standards, are more concerned with gimmicks, performances, and
strategies for holding student attention in 6-minute attention capsules that would optimize their chances of
securing a high student satisfaction score.
When
I teach a graduate seminar, I expect my students to read approximately 300 to
500 pages of text. For my students, I am known to be a tough teacher with high
expectations. However, the 300 to 500 pages of readings I believe form the
fundamentals for each week of concept covered in the module. This is the
standard I held my graduate students to when I taught at Purdue University and
I expect no less from my students at the National University of Singapore. Now
to cater to student feedback and to reduce the amount of reading load because
the students are having difficulty coping will not serve the learning
objectives of the module. Instead, I see my role as working with each student
to see how best they can reach their potential, meeting the high expectations
in the module, and reaching the global standards of what it means to be an
excellent communication scholar.
Similarly,
when I teach an exposure module to communications and new media, I expect my
students to go out into the community, conduct and interview members of the
public, transcribe the interview, and write up a report on the basis of
analyzing the interview, incorporating the analytic frames into the theories
covered thus far in the module. The interaction with the community I believe is
a key element of learning communication, taking the student out of the ivory
tower and into possibilities of interactions with community members. Also, the
interview as an assignment, teaches the students to ask questions and to listen,
two fundamental tools of effective communication.
To
expect any less from my students would not do them justice in the long run as
it would not really give them a flavor of what it is like to engage in learning
about communication and practicing it. As a teacher with their best interests
in mind and based on my experiences in teaching students for almost two
decades, I make the call that learning to conduct an interview is an integral
component of the pedagogical objectives of an exposure communication module.
To
the extent that I want to cater my teaching to the student feedback, I know
that removing the assignment will lead to a higher score from my students. This
however, in my opinion, will not serve the best interests of my students as it
would not equip them with some fundamental communication skills. I also believe
that if we are to continue being one of the exemplar communication departments
in the world, we ought to expect the very best from our students and subject
them to the highest of global standards in practicing communication. A student
evaluation-centric approach to teaching can become a way for catering to the
least common denominator. However, where my student evaluation comes in handy
is in telling me that I need to do a better job communicating course
expectations and communicating to them why I have included the particular
assignment.
To
the extent that Universities start relying on student evaluations as the sole
metric of faculty performance, Universities are in trouble. The best of
learning takes place in an environment that supports student learning, is open
to difference and experimentation, and nurtures faculty in developing the most
meaningful ways of contributing to learning. By not treating students as
consumers of a homogeneously packaged product, university teachers can consider
the ways in which they can encourage students to be critical thinkers, explore new
horizons, and take up difficult and creative challenges.