The preparation for the transition had actually started a couple of years earlier. By early 2010, the university had already designed a system that some informally referred to as the “cafeteria” approach. Basically the students are offered a number of options, with a lot of subjects in a variety of areas, and the students have the freedom to choose what subjects they wish to study. The new VP(AD) wished to put in some core subjects to give the General Education program a more distinctive character and focus.
VP(AD) started a dialog with experts on general education from overseas who happened to be in Hong Kong, as well as internal PolyU academics. After much soul searching, focus was narrowed down to leadership development and service-learning - the former, presumably, for personal development and the later for the social development of the student. He then convened a crucial brainstorming session on the possibility of incorporating service-learning into the academic program in July 2010, with participation from the Dean of Students, Director of Student Affairs, Director of General Education Center, and several other people with relevant expertise and experience, such as Prof. Daniel Shek, a well-recognised expert in youth development, and Dr. K P Kwan, an expert on education development.
By 2020, PolyU had already had many years of experience in organising community service projects as extra-curricula activities, mainly by the Student Affairs Office. For several years, there have actually been a Community Service Learning Program (CSLP) which encouraged student projects, often advised by academics voluntarily, with hundreds of participants each year. Awards given to the best projects each year were well appreciated. There were even some intensive projects which demanded student efforts on a par with regular 3-credit academic subjects. Perhaps because of these developments, members at the brainstorming session were positive towards the idea. Nevertheless there were some concerns, such as funding, the lack of experience teachers, whether it should be compulsory, etc. After much discussion, at the brainstorming session, it was felt that it was possible to make service-learning a separate credit-bearing subject, and even compulsory for all undergraduate students. The first step would be to define the vision, objectives, key elements and intended learning outcomes, with suitable quality assurance.
In that very same summer, a team of 3 academics (Dr. Grace Ngai, Dr. Stephen Chan and Dr. Vincent Ng) from Department of Computing took a group of ~25 students to Cambodia to carry out an ambitious community service project. They sent small teams of ~4 students each to different locations around Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia.
These were community centres for youths in slums run by an NGO set up by someone from the USA. The PolyU teams set up computer networks and run workshops on information technology, focusing on storytelling enhanced with computer technology.
The team also spent 2 days running workshops at a primary school for children living in the slums next to the city’s infamous garbage dump. Many of the kids scavenged for plastics, metals, glasses, etc., for recycling, alongside their parents. One team went to run workshops at an orphanage outside the city, run by missionaries from Hong Kong.
There we taught the kids to use a camera and to tell stories with their own photographs.
Yet another team worked at a shelter for girls trafficked for sex, run by two lady American missionaries, to improve their computer facilities. We ended up becoming close friends. When two of our students got sick on a 6-hour long long bus journey coming back to Phnom Penh from Siem Reap, the missionaries point us to an excellently run clinic where our students were well-taken care of by local Cambodian doctors.
We rewarded our students with a day trip to the world famous, 1,000 year old ruins of Ankor Wat. This project opened our eyes to what is possible when students are properly motivated and suitably trained, passionate academic staff with the right expertise are engaged to guide and supervise, good relations are built up with responsible partners, and projects with significant impact are realistically designed. This experience gave us much needed confidence to take on the challenge of making service-learning a core component of general education at PolyU.
The CSLP, the team that carried out the Cambodian project and others, and other related activities gave the VP(AD) and other concerned people the confidence that perhaps PolyU was ready to make service-learning a core component of our general education. A task force was subsequently formed to take the planning forward. The task force consisted of VP(AD), representatives from each of the 6 faculties and 2 schools, Education Development Center, the student union, and the Director of Student Affairs, with Ms. Jeice Cheung from Student Affairs Office as secretary. At that point, there was a little hiccup. The Task Force was chaired by a professor, the Director of General Education Center, who, somehow, could not be reached for quite some time. To take things forward, VP(AD) asked Dr. Stephen Chan, one of the leaders of the Cambodia venture in that summer, to take the initiative to move things forward. The Task Force was directed by VP(AD) to propose (1) the definition and scope of Service-Learning, (2) the mechanism of course approval and expected deliverables, and (3) the supporting administrative structure to support the implementation. The proposal would then be discussed at the upcoming Senate meeting in early December 2010.
While the proposal was being drafted, it was also decided to pilot run some service-learning courses before formally launching the program with the first cohort of students for the 4-year undergraduate students entering PolyU in 2020. The pilot courses will be offered as elective subjects for the current 3-year undergraduate programs. One of the first ones being designed was a subject to be offered by the Department of Computing, based on their past experience running technology-based community service projects in Hong Kong, Mainland China, as well as Cambodia. The pilot subjects will be offered in summer 2011.
Throughout the discussions, a consensus was building. The Task Force produced a proposal which, after a number of iterations with input from VP(AD), was finalised just in time for the Senate in early December. All undergraduates are required to take at least one 3-credit subject in service-learning, through which,
- Students will be required to participate in substantial community service or civic engagement activities (40 hours) that will benefit the service users or the community in a meaningful way.
- Apple the knowledge and skills acquired from their Major or other learning experiences at the university to the community service activities, and
- Reflect on their service learning experience in order to link theory with practice, and to develop an enhanced sense of ethical, social and national responsibility.
These service-learning subjects will be offered by academic departments. A SL subject can be discipline-specific, designed for students who major in the discipline or otherwise having acquired the required discipline-specific knowledge and skills. Or it can be generic, having some content specific to the discipline, but nevertheless at a level suitable for students from other disciplines.
A central office will be set up to support the support the implementation of the service-learning initiative. It will assist departments in course development and liaison with community partners, staff development and training, risk management, acting as a resource center, conduct research and development, solicit donations, and otherwise promote the development of service-learning.
At the Senate, the proposal attracted rigorous discussions. Many issues were brought up. Some were concerned that PolyU was granting academic credit to volunteering - it was clarified that service-learning is much more than volunteer work and is in fact a legitimate academic learning pedagogy. Some were concerned that academics in hard sciences and engineering were not familiar with teaching “soft” skills such as reflection - it was pointed out that reflection is a common skill taught in social science and the university has plenty of academics who can train others to do so. Some were concerned that community service should be voluntary, rewarding the students with credit and even making it compulsory distorts their motivation in “doing good” - it was well noted as a possible issue, but it was also pointed out that many students have never had a chance to truly experience serving the community, taking one SL subject out of 40 subjects required for graduation is a suitable “trial” for the student such can subsequently decided whether to continue serving the community voluntarily. A long debate ensured. Finally, when most of major concerns seemed to have been considered, President Tong called for a vote. The proposal passed with the votes roughly in a four (for) to one (against) ratio. Voting at the Senate was not a common occurrence. Usually, by the time a proposal gets to the Senate, it had already gone through many level of deliberation and scrutinised by various stake holders such that most concerns had been dealt with. The vigorous debate indicated that there remained a diversity of opinion. On the other hand, the very large ratio of plurality also signified that the university community was highly in favour of the proposal.
That was the beginning of the era of rigorous, academic credit-bearing at PolyU.
No comments:
Post a Comment