The corona virus cancelled our team’s planned service-learning projects in Cambodia, Rwanda and Tanzania. We did not want to admit defeat and just sit on our hands, waiting for the virus to pass.Hence we designed a set of STEM-related teaching projects that we can conduct online without physical human contact. But we wanted to make the learning as physical and experiential as possible, with 3D glasses, VR glasses, home-made 3D movies, home-manufactured kits with geared cars, hydraulic arms, … We ended up working with school children in Hong Kong, Cambodia, Vietnam and Rwanda.
Our teaching team and the students have to overcome a lot of obstacles. Access to computers and Internet for the kids, particularly those in developing countries and communities. The logistics of distributing the equipment. The multiple language barriers. The capturing and retention of attention. What is not lacking is passion from all stake-holders (school and NGO partners, parents), the enthusiasm of the children, the learning and satisfaction of our students, the appreciation of all our partners - near and particularly from afar. While our students are disappointed by not being able to travel to international service-learning projects, many still managed to learn a lot through cross-cultural, cross-boundary, technology-infused service-learning.
Now that the very challenging academic year is over, what happens next? Is there a future for remote service-learning, or rSL? Definitely. There are at least two fronts on which we have gained some experience with a lot of potential.
In Hong Kong, our own locality, schools will not be able to operate in the old “normal” manner for a long time. Schools and teachers have to do as much teaching as possible through some semblance of e-Learning for an indefinite period of time. What we have tried and learned through this summer will be very helpful in this direction. We should certainly continue to work with primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong to push the technology and the pedagogy further.
Much more importantly,we see the extent and impact of the digital divide even more clearly across the world. While there are pockets (some quite significant in size) in Hong Kong with a lack of access to proper computers and Internet bandwidth, the situation is the opposite in many countries such as Cambodia and Rwanda. Instead of pockets of “have-nots” in a society of “haves”, there are only small pockets of “haves” in a society of “have-nots”. And the divide is even more stark in terms of knowledge and expertise, as compared with the situation in hardware and software. While teachers in Hong Kong manage different degrees of success in teaching online, there is practically no teaching online in many countries and communities on the other side of the digital divide. Most of the students, particularly the younger ones, stay at home with nothing to do.
Virtual Reality is affordable, e.g., in the form of DIY Google cardboard, is affordable for many in developed countries. In countries such as Cambodia and Rwanda they inspire awe even among well-educated adults. Even disposable 3D glasses, common and cheap (as in movie theatres showing movies in 3D) in most developed countries, is a novelty in Rwanda. While education in developed countries are inconvenienced and delayed, it is stopped completely in many underdeveloped countries. The gap is only going to get wider.
The success of our students in conducting online classes with a certain degree of physical, experiential learning points to a possible way forward. With or without travelling, teachers and students in more privileged countries and communities can conduct online classes for children on the opposite side of the digital divide. Our bodies cannot travel. But there is no reason why knowledge cannot. And we should not wait for government, politicians, and big organisations to make it happen. Individuals, schools, NGOs, can work together to make it happen. We certainly will continue.
Today, our teaching team is finalising the grades for our service-learning course which runs through the Spring Term to the Summer Term. We had originally planned to take the teams to Cambodia, Rwanda and Tanzania in May, June and July. Everything will eb finished by the end of July. We could take a break in August, and then come back fresh in September for the new school year.
But the coronavirus made it impossible to travel. Things got delayed again and again. We ended up carrying out the service projects through the Internet, with children in Hong Kong, Vietnam and Cambodia, throughout July and August. We must finalise the students’ grades to get ready for the new school year.
In the mean time, orientation for the incoming students has already started, online of course. We have worked through summer. And the new school year is starting already.
This has been a very strange year. We have not had classes on campus since early November 2019. We do not know when we will have students on campus again. What is a university campus without students?
On Sunday, Prof. Jonathan Webster gave a sermon in which he showed a video clip from the movie “The Seventh Seal”. A medieval knight returned from the Crusades to find the country ravaged by the plague. Amid all the evil and suffering, God seems silent, absent, or perhaps does not even exist.
Many people in Hong Kong nowadays feel the same way. Thugs beat people with impunity. A legislative councillor calls the thugs his heroes. The police look the other way. Some police even seem to enjoy beating people at the drop of a hat. The government seems to see its job as pushing through bad laws and suppressing dissent. An education minister seems only interested in rooting out dissent, rather than actually educating. A government that considers any challenge as subversion. Self-appointed leaders condemn a whole generation of youths as un-redeemable. Educators that consider students to be enemies. Church leaders who consider their jobs to be assisting the tyrants in suppressing dissent. A whole establishment that considers dissenters to be filthy cockroaches.
It is hard not to despair, to be angry. To question God. Isn’t God supposed to love justice, punish the wicked, comfort those who are sad, liberate the oppressed, and reward those who suffer for righteousness? Why isn’t it happening?
It is tempting to want to hate the oppressors, to want to hurt them, to punish them, to do to them what they are doing to us. But that would be wrong. That would be giving in to the evil, to turn to the dark side. That would make us as evil they are. That would be giving in to despair, giving up hope, giving up faith.
Justice will be served. It is just delayed. This is the time to uphold faith, to believe in the justice that is yet to come. Without faith there is no hope. Without hope there is no meaning. Without meaning there is no point in continuing to live. We might as well give up, and turn to the dark side. It is difficult to maintain faith in these times. That is precisely why it is so valuable. It would not be so valuable if it is easy.
But God is still there. There is still meaning in living. There is still hope. It is still possible to have faith. That is in fact the only way out.
The coronavirus forces practically all schools to switch to online teaching. Recently I had an opportunity to discuss with the head of a primary school in Hong Kong.The school is reasonably equipped with the technology needed.It has also managed to provide the necessary training to the teachers themselves. The teachers have now gotten comfortable with the technology. The school seems to be coping well under the circumstances.
What happens next? The virus is pushing many schools to adopt eLearning in a massive scale. If and when the virus is controlled, most schools will certainly want to return to face-to-face classroom teaching. Will eLearning disappear or simply revert to playing a marginal role again? Probably not, and neither should it. While face-to-face teaching has advantages that can not be fully replaced anytime soon, eLearning also has advantages that should not be ignored.
One major advantage is the freedom from the constraints of distance. A teacher can teach from home or school, while the students can stay at home in Hong Kong - or actually anywhere else in the world It works when the students are stuck in Mainland China or elsewhere and cannot return to Hong Kong. An outside teacher can be arranged to teach a group of students in Hong Kong from a foreign country. A group of students in Hong Kong can interact with a group of students in Mainland China with Putonghua, or another in USA with English. It can also be Vietnam, Cambodia, or Rwanda, with an exotic language and culture. Teachers from different countries can teach each other’s students, or both groups together as if they are together in the same classroom. A lot of international exposure can be achieved in the comfort and safety of your own school. A school can do this with another school in an underprivileged community, to introduce community service into the classroom, without having to travel.
Our group has done all of these, at the university level. Now that primary and secondary schools are getting familiar with online teaching and learning, there is no real reason why the same cannot be done even at a primary school. This may actually be the time to take the first steps as a front runner.
One way to start is to cultivate a small community of practice. Bootstrap with, possibly only a few, teachers who are the most keen, adapt, or simply adventurous. Challenge them with a small, do-able project, perhaps something that has been proven to work elsewhere. Give them a small amount of seed funding. And start from there. In time, your school will have something advanced and unique, that turns a challenge into a competitive advantage.
The virus cancelled all travelling to foreign countries for service-learning. Even any physical contact in Hong Kong.Our team develop STEM projects and kits for a primary school in Hong Kong, send the kits to the schools kids at home, via their school, and teach the kids at home remotely.It works.Some translation is needed as some of our students come from foreign countries who cannot speak Cantonese. It turns out some can speak Mandarin, and the local kids can understand Mandarin.
So we adapt the procedure with kids in Vietnam, Cambodia and Rwanda. In each case we have to deal with issues of language, often relying on interpreters who are students or volunteers themselves. On this weekend, tow teams are teaching 2 groups of kids in rural Cambodia. Our teaching team is keeping an eye on how things are going.
We have to tackle issues of lack of access to computers, and poor networks. We have to learn to rely less on direct interactions, and more on videos and photos and other forms of media. That is digital divide in real life.
Imagine a rooster crowing suddenly when you are explaining how to assemble a car with lots of gears to powered by a rubber band. That is part of the cultural learning that our students are experiencing.
We are so proud of our teaching team who are pulling these off. We are also grateful for our partners, with their volunteers and students in Cambodia, Vietnam and Rwanda and other countries which are helping us put these projects together.
Armed with the experiences from this summer, we are planning even more ambitious and challenging projects for Fall 2020 and beyond.
The Service-Learning Requirement is a part of the General University Requirements - a set of 30 credits-worth of General Education Subjects that all undergraduates are required to take, under the new 4-year undergraduate programs starting in 2012. A Committee of General University Requirements (CoGUR) was set up, as a sub-committee of the Academic Planning Committee (APC) to manage the GUR subjects. APC itself reports to the Senate, the highest academic body of the university.
The CoGUR met for the first time on 26th September, 2011. It was then chaired by Prof. Michael Tse, chair professor and Head of the Department of Electronic and Information Engineering. For some, it may seem unusual for a professor in engineering to take charge of general education at a comprehensive university. In fact, Prof. Tse is a person with a wide range of interests and expertise. For example, he had been chairman of the Culture Promotion Committee for PolyU, as well as a member of the Quality Education Fund for the Hong Kong Government, among his wide range of services to the university, academic community, and society at large.
Under the CoGUR, 7 sub-committees were set up to manage the different types of subjects. One of these, the Sub-committee on Service-Learning Subjects, considers and recommends to the CoGUR subjects to be offered under the Service-Learning Requirement. It met for the first time on 19th September, 2011. Dr. Grace Ngai, associate professor in the Department of Computing, was appointed chairperson of the sub-committee. Dr. Ngai was one of the very few people in PolyU at the time who have had extensive experience related to service-learning.
As discussed elsewhere, PolyU made a first call for proposals to develop pilot subjects on service-learning in March 2011. At the time, the CoGUR and the sub-committee on service-learning subjects have not yet been set up. Hence the pilot proposals were vetted by an ad hoc panel appointed by VP(AD). The second call for pilot proposals went out in summer 2011. By the time the SL sub-committee was set up, the second round proposals were coming in. The first order of business of the first meeting was hence to consider the second round proposals for pilot SL subjects.
Service-Learning is an area new to PolyU. We could not assume that colleagues across the university automatically know how to write the proposals for new SL subjects. Hence it works closely with the soon-to-be-established Office of Service-Learning to promote the concepts of service-learning and to provide assistance to the subject proposers. A proposal would be considered “suitable to be offered”, “requiring revision”, or “not suitable” as a result of the deliberations of the sub-committee. There are a number of common issues which seem to occur often:
The proposal is heavily focused on academic learning but the benefit to the community is not obvious. For example, some may seem more like field studies or research which may generate reports, with no tangible benefits to the community studied.
The proposal is too focused on the benefit to the recipient but it is not clear what the the students are learning from the process. For example, students are asked to carry out a well-defined process without much instruction.
The expertise required for the service is beyond what can be expected from undergraduates. For example, providing high level consultancy which may be more suitable for the professors.
The students are expected to provide mainly routine operations, without higher order challenges to learn from. For example, providing menial labour for construction.
The community need is not obvious, e.g., the targeted community is not under-privileged and can in fact easily afford to pay for the services themselves.
Unreasonable risks are involved, e.g., the service involves dangerous activities that the students have not been trained for, the project sites are not politically stable, etc.
The proposed teaching/service and the background/qualification/experience of the proposers do not seem to match.
The logistical arrangements may be unrealistic. For example, the services are broken up into many sessions of short duration, incurring much overhead in terms of travelling time, or the services are required during class time.
The sub-committee would then write detailed comments on the proposals, or even make suggestions, to assist the proposers in revising the proposals. If deemed appropriate, the chair person, or members of the committee would also meet with the proposers in order to convey the feedback and suggestions more effectively.
The sub-committee is responsible for ensuring that the service-learning subjects are true to the spirit of Service-Learning Requirement as approved by the Senate. This is particularly important in view of the skepticism initially expressed by some academics at the university. Hence the sub-committee has adopted a rigorous approach towards the vetting of the subject proposals. Many of the proposals have indeed undergone several rounds of revision before the proposed subject is considered acceptable to be offered. It is fair to say the SL program has earned the respect of the academics (and not a little grumbling) on campus for its academic rigour.
On the other hand, the sub-committee is impressed by the passion and effort made by many of the proposers. They very well recognise that proposing and teaching service-learning takes quite a lot more initiative and effort than teaching regular academic subjects that they are accustomed to. Some lament that their efforts are not fully recognized, and yet they persevere. Many of the proposers also did not have a lot of relevant experience to start with. Consequently, the sub-committee often feels compelled to provide as much assistance as possible to the proposers to come up with a viable proposal.
On the surface, there could be a perceived adversarial relationship between the sub-committee on SL subjects (SCSLS) and the Office of Service-Learning (OSL). The SCSLS is responsible for ensuring SL subjects achieve high academic standards, hence making it difficult for proposals to be approved. The OSL mandate is to promote SL subjects, ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of subjects and places for students. Ultimately, both SCSLS and OSL aim at building up a strong SL program, cultivating a culture of social engagement at PolyU. In practice, the two units work closely together. The SCSLS specifies the academic standards expected, which informs OSL in developing SL subjects. On the other hand, the experience gained by OSL in implementation informs SCSLS on good practices to be applied. The two units have since developed a symbiotic working relationship with each other.
In summer 2011 we received some expected help. By chance, we got to know Prof. Dayle Smith, who was professor of management and organization behaviour at the University of San Francisco at the time. She was then visiting another university in Hong Kong as a General Education Fulbright Scholar. University of San Francisco is a Catholic Jesuit school where service-learning is compulsory and Prof. Smith happens to be a strong advocate of service-learning in the business school. Even though she was not attached to our school, she was very kind and gave us a lot of advice on various aspects on service-learning. Prof. Smith ran a seminar at PolyU on assessment, an important aspect on which we had very little experience. And it was very well received. She introduced us much scholarly work on different aspects of service-learning. That included the work of Prof. Andrew Furco, whom we got to know very well subsequently.
Assessment was indeed on of the challenges threw up at the debate at the Senate in December 2010, when the proposal to make service-learning a core requirement was discussed. Some professors in science and engineering were of the opinion that they do not know how to assess “soft” skills required in understanding and providing community service to people in need. However, teaching and assessment of such skills are quite common in many disciplines such as social science and health. Prof. Smith and others (including colleagues within PolyU) have demonstrated and showed us ways to teach and acquire such skills ourselves.
We had since became very good friends with Prof. Smith. In the following year we sent a small delegation to visit a number of American universities to learn about service-learning. That included a fruitful visit to Prof. Smith at the University of San Francisco. One very concrete result of that visit is detailed understanding of their McCarthy Center for Public Service, which became very valuable when we set up our own Office of Service-Learning. Another tangible result was discovering that their rector, a Jesuit priest, went to South American to visit their students carrying out service-learning projects in the field. In 2014, we successfully invited our own president, Prof. Timothy Tong to visit our students serving in the villages and slums in Cambodia. Prof. Tong has since become a vocal supporter, visiting many projects.
We had kept in touch with Prof. Smith even after she moved east to Clarkson University and then west again to Loyola Marymount University. She is one of many special friends of PolyU that we have made through service-learning, who have been very helpful on our journey.
Our collaboration with Prof. Smith provides an interesting context to a phenomena noted by many people from different perspectives. Mainstream economic theories are generally believed to be founded on the assumption that individuals seek to make decisions to optimise personal benefits to themselves. Altruistic motivations are generally not given heavy consideration. This point has been made by very prominent scholar including Prof. Muhammad Yunus, pioneer of microcredit and microfinance and Nobel Prize awardee. Some scholars have observed that business schools may be less active in service-learning compared to disciplines such as social science, humanities, and engineering. Prof. Smith and other like her provide testimonies that this observation may or may not be universally valid. More studies may illuminate this interesting and important issue further.
Five Pilot Subjects were approved and funded in the first round, in early 2011.
Chinese as a second language in Local Schools. Proposed by Dr. John Wakefield of the Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies. As a Discipline-Specific Course for students in their own department.
Teaching English as a Service-Learning Experience. Proposed by Dr. Cathy Wong of the Department of English. As a Discipline-Specific Course for students in their own department.
Biomedical Engineering Services to Under privileged People with Physical Disabilities. Proposed by Dr. M. S. Wong, Dr. Aaron Leung and Dr. Raymond Tong of the Department of Health Technology and Informatics. As a course open to students in their own broad discipline.
Community Psychology. Proposed by Dr. Charles Chan and Dr.Kevin Chan of the Department of Applied Social Sciences. As a course open to all students.
Service-Learning and Civic Engagement in the Information Age. Proposed by Dr. Stephen Chan, Dr. Grace Ngai and Dr. Vincent Ng of the Department of Computing. As a course open to all students.
Funding was provided to the approved proposals to develop the courses, run the courses and conduct evaluation on the effectiveness of the courses. The two other proposals were asked to make certain changes and resubmit subsequently. Most of the proposals did not just arose out of thin air. Most were made by individuals or teams with prior relevant experience.
“Community Psychology” proposed to conduct assessment of adolescent health and preventive screening, physical health promotion activities, mentoring of children from disadvantaged families, etc., in the Kwai Tsing and Tsing Yi Districts. Through the course, students learn and apply key concepts in community psychology such as community participation, empowerment, and sense of community to the formulation and implementation of community interventions targeting community health, individuals’ wellness,and civic society at a higher level. Students are guided through structured reflection opportunities such as action plan and goal statement, application journals, and reflective reports. Dr. Charles Chan was an expert in clinical psychology. He was very experienced in youth development and have been conducting many related projects such as youth mentoring for many years. He had been a key member of the early years of service-learning at PolyU when we were building the foundations for the program. Sadly, Dr. Charles Chan has since passed away due to illness. He has been remembered fondly by many. Fortunately, Dr. Kevin Chan has continued to teach this course sincethen.
The teaching of language as a community service is a common and obvious theme. In Hong Kong the majority of the population speak Cantonese. Hence it is a critical need of new immigrants and ethnic minorities to learn to speak Cantonese. On the other hand, English is very popular and necessary for academics and business. For students studying Chinese, English or translation, service-learning helps them strengthen their own academic studies while they learn to be more engaged with community. A variety of such courses employing innovative practices have since been developed.
“Biomedical Engineering Services” is an interesting case. The proposers have been taking their students to sites in mainland China to practice orthotic interventions for children with cerebral palsy prior to making the proposal. It had already been a very successful endeavour in training the students in practical academic skills as well as community engagement. They have even be collaborating with foreign universities, who send their students to Hong Kong to travel to China with our students on these projects. Hence the vetting panel had little hesitation in approving the proposal. The teaching team have been running their project into mainland China each year ever since. Unfortunately, they have not managed to run the project as a part of the SL subject yet. There seems to be complications relating to reconciling among the clients’ availability, the partner university’s availability, PolyU’s academic calendar and perhaps some other logistical issues. This reminds us that service-learning can be much more challenging to manage than regular academic subjects, because of the balancing between academic and community objectives, the partnership with external organizations, the logistics of the field work, the financial costs of the travelling and equipment/material, and other matters.
“Information Age” is an ambitious proposal. The team had already carried out many service projects in Hong Kong, mainland China and Cambodia prior to making this proposal. The project in Cambodia in summer 2010, was, in fact a key factor in convincing the Task Force on Service-Learning that credit-bearing SL is feasible at PolyU. They have already offered a short, non-credit bearing course on service-learning in the previous year. In the pilot in summer 2011, 47 students from 8 different departments, representing 5 different faculties, registered for the course. There were students in the 3-year undergraduate programs. They are not required to take service-learning. They took the subject for extra-credit, beyond the number of credits required for graduation. There were organised into 3 teams.
Team 1 ran a week-long workshop on computers for young refugees in Hong Kong. It is estimated that there are ~10,000 refugees in Hong Kong. Few have any realistic prospects of resettling in other countries.
Team 2 went to Xinjiang to run a week-long orkshop for the students in a school associated with a factory owned by a business woman from Hong Kong.
Team 3 went to Cambodia and run 3 projects:
A sub-team ran a programming workshop for a vocational school, the Asian Human Resource Development Institute, ran by a missionary from Hong Kong. We have become good friends and cooperate on many projects since then.
A sub-team ran a summer workshop for a primary school for children living at Phnom Penh’s infamous Stung Meanchay Garbage Dump. Every time it rains, the school will be flooded because there were big holes in the roof. The kids are poor but smart and lovely. They have retained a special place inour hearts. We are happy to report that the school is now in much better shape.
A sub-team ran information technology workshop at the community centre at New Life Fellowship, a Christian church. They have had a big impact on many young people who came from the rural areas to Phnom Penh to study and work. They have helped us on many projects since then.
A sub-team ran workshops for the staff and girls at White Lotus, a women’s shelter for young girls formerly trafficked for sex, operated by 2 American lady missionaries. We have great respect for their dedication and compassion.
A sub-team ran workshops at the House of Rainbow Bridge, a hospitalfor children with HIV AIDS, run by missionaries from Hong Kong. Initially, the hospital was set up for the sick children to die with dignity. Subsequently, the children stabilised but continue to have to take a lot of medicine. Each kid has a small medicine basket and the staff ensure that they take their medicine .
The Cambodian Team was particularly challenged by the difficult environment and enormity of the problems - and very intense. On the other hand, the work was also extremely rewarding because of the very visible impact on people’s lives. It was estimated that the students spent 150 hours each on the course, including the academic content, cultural preparation, health precautions, project preparations and execution, reflection, and presentation.
The course has since spawned a number of other SL courses. The many projects have since served in Hong Kong, Cambodia, Myanmar, Rwanda, Kyrgyzstan, and there are plans for more. They have also developed very strong connections to, in close collaboration with the soon-to-be-established Office of Service-Learning many projects sites outside Hong Kong. And have introduced Sl teams from many other departments to those sites. We will elaborate on these developments in subsequent chapters.
On the other hand, we had also received proposals from outside the university. For example, we received a proposal from an educational non-profit organization. Unfortunately, the proposal was heavy on leadership development but relatively light on service-learning. It also relied heavily on external speakers to deliver the teaching. It was felt that service-learning is a core component of our undergraduate program. Hence it is more appropriate to develop our own longer-term teaching capacity for service-learning courses. Partly related to this experience, it is felt that for sustainability, we should not rely too much on part-time or short term staff for the core teaching of service-learning.
We had also, on occasion, received enquiries and proposals on student-based organizations. These are typically focused on student exchange or community service. Generally these proposals emphasise cultural exposure or volunteer service. But are lacking in academic learning objectives, rigorous teaching and assessment.
The Senate approved the proposed Service-Learning Requirement in December 2010, kicking off the process to build a brand-new core component of the new 4-year undergraduate programs. There were only one year and a half left before it came into effect for the cohort starting 4-year undergraduate programs in September 2012. At that point we had nothing in place: (1) no courses (subjects) in PolyU, (2) no academic procedure and infrastructure for approval and quality control for such courses, and (3) no mechanism to promote and develop such courses. All of these have to be addressed in order to roll out the new Service-Learning Requirement. It was obvious that we had to move fast to have any chance of having at least some of the required courses in place when the students arrive on campus in September 2012.
The Task Force that was assembled to develop the Service-Learning Requirement was tasked to develop a plan to move things forward. It became obvious that we need to experiment with some such courses to prepare for the formal roll-out. It was quickly decided to develop a small number of “pilot” courses as soon as possible, and offer these pilot courses as elective subjects to the students in the then 3-year programs. This way the university could gain crucial experience in developing, offering and managing service-learning courses, and to use such experience in the design of the supporting infrastructure.
The Spring semester of 2010/11 was going to start almost immediately. There simply wasn’t enough time to develop any courses for piloting in time for the Spring semester. The earliest that any such courses could be tested was summer 2011. We did get to work quickly. The Task Force did a stock-taking around PolyU, to see how much service-learning-related activities there were in the various faculties and schools, particularly those that had a potential to be developed into credit-bearing subjects. It was decided in early February to issue a call for proposals of pilot subjects, with accompanying guidelines.
In mid March, a Call for Proposals was sent out from VP(AD) office, for pilot subjects on service-learning, to departments and faculties. A set of criteria for the approval of SL subjects was specified based on the general principles stipulated in the original proposal to the Senate.
To qualify as a subject meeting theService-Learning Requirement of PolyU, the proposed subject:
Must carry a minimum of 3 credits
Can last for one or two semesters, and extend into the Summer Term
Must include, in addition to the intended learning outcomes associated with the academic content of the subject, the following learning outcomes common to all service-learning subjects: [On completing the subject, students will be able to:]
Apply the knowledge and skills they have acquired to deal with complex issues in the service setting
Reflect on their role and responsibilities both as a professional in their chosen discipline and as a responsible citizen
Demonstrate empathy for people in need and a strong sense of civic responsibility.
Must include in its teaching and learning process, a requirement for all students to participate in community service or engagement activities that:
address identified community needs in a meaningful way
create opportunities for students to interact directly with the service users or community members, and
benefit both the students and the service users/the community at large.
For a 3-credit subject, students are normally expected to spend a minimum of 40 hours (~ one third of the expected total student effort) in rendering the service.
Must provide structured opportunities for reflection to enable students to connect their learning with the service, and to reflect on their role and social responsibilities both as a professional and a responsible citizen.
Must include a rigorous and systematic process in which students’ performance in and their learning from the required service activities are assessed, using a Letter-Grading system.
On March 28, 2011, PolyU ran the first seminar on Service-Learning “Developing Proposals for Piloting Service-Learning Subjects for the 4-year Curriculum”. It was hosted by Dr. Stephen Chan, Associate Professor in Department of Computing and Convenor of the Task Force on Service-Learning, and Dr. K. P. Kwan, of the Education Development Center and Special Assistant to Vice-President (Academic Development).
Seven proposals for new SL subjects were received. A panel appointed by VP(AD), consisting of Prof. Daniel Shek, Dr. K. P. Kwan and Dr. Stephen Chan, convenor of the Task Force, vetted the subject proposals based on the principles presented in the original proposal for the Servie-Learning Requirement. Five of them were approved. We will write about the pilot subjects in more detail in another section.
The criteria for vetting SL subject proposals were developed quickly based on the original proposal to the Senate. They have since been revised a number of times, but the core concepts have stood the test of time, and have not been altered significantly.
The vetting panel was an ad hoc set up. These are part of the boot-strapping process through which the academic procedures and policies were developed. A subcommittee for the approval of SL subjects was subsequently set up as a subcommittee of the Committee on General University Requirements (CoGUR). An Office of Service-Learning was set up to promote service-learning and in general support the implementation. More on these important developments in another section.
When people think of service-learning, people generally visualise a bunch of university students carrying out a service project for some underprivileged community, such as children, elderly, ethnic minority, people in poverty, … There is nothing wrong with that image. However, many people take the teachers for granted. Where do service-learning teachers come from? Professors don’t automatically know how to teach service-learning. Service-Learning is not a distinct academic discipline, not even a part of any established academic discipline. There are few training courses over the world, and none in Hong Kong as far as we can tell. So we have to train them ourselves.
We have been running a teacher training course on service-learning for several years now. Last year we took 20 teachers from Hong Kong, Philippines and Vietnam to Cambodia, to train them in the field, observing students and their teachers working with collaborating NGOs to serve in the villages. This year, because of the virus, we cannot travel, we cannot even meet in person. So we meet online. This year, we have another 20 teachers from PolyU, our community college, University of Hong Kong, Open University of Hong Kong, and Baptist University.
We cannot take them to the field, so we bring the field to them. We brought in teachers, NGO partners, and students. We show videos of students in service, physical as well as online. We covered all aspects of service-learning. The balance between service and learning. The academic learning objectives. Critical success factors. How to deal with the demanding workload. How to find suitable partners. How to turn a pedagogy (such as digital story telling) into real projects. How to build long term, sustainable relationships. How to guide the students to do reflections properly. How to find the funding for projects. How to educate the campus abut service-learning. …
Despite all the well known difficulties involved in online, interactive learning, most of the teachers persevere through the 7 hours a day, 2 day long course. They ask questions, answer questions, share their projects, brainstorm ideas. They are attentive, appreciative, helpful, and courteous. A great bunch. The 2 day course is intensive and draining. But it is also rewarding. It is energising seeing a bunch of passionate teachers working together. We feel we are taking another step to bring service-learning forward.
If we can teach kids in Hong Kong remotely, can we teach kids in Rwanda from Hong Kong?You bet.This is exactly what is happening today. After much negotiations, planning, testing of equipment, acquiring of hardware, installation of software, setting of time (there is a 6 hour time difference between Hong Kong and Rwanda), our students launch the first lesson today.
Our student team consists of 2 Malaysians, 1 Indonesian, and 2 Rwandans. Yes, we have students from Rwanda studying at PolyU. They are here, partly as a result of our prior work in Rwanda. They are taking service-learning courses and they have decided that they will help in the project which serves their own country. And we do need them as the bridge, obviously.
Three member of the team came back to campus to do the lesson. Two work from the dormitory. Together they are teaching 4 Rwandan kids from 2 families. All of them, speak English but they are interacting with English speakers from a foreign country for the first time. How exciting!
The lesson today will start with culture. How is Hong Kong different from Rwanda, etc. Soon, we hope to make it also physical. We will be trying to send them some of the STEM kits that we have developed. We will also make use of some of the material left from prior projects: solar panels, cables, light bulbs, tools, … Imagine: Rwandan kids connecting a light bulb through a set of cables to a solar panel, put the panel outside under the sun, …, and watch as the lightbulb light up. All done with their own hands.
We cannot go there in person. That does not mean we cannot make our impact felt in some way. We are told that their neighbours are all excited and piled into their houses to see what was going on.
It is remote, but not virtual. Because of the social distancing, we cannot bring the kids to our campus, we cannot go to their school, the kids cannot even go to their own school, and we certainly cannot go to the kids’ homes.But both us, and the school, want to persevere with the project. Hence we are doing it on line, remotely.
But this is not virtual. Our teaching team has gone to great lengths to design the kits for the STEM projects, and manufacture them in vast numbers, using laser cutting machines from all over campus. Then we send them to the school. The teacher sat outside the school to distribute the kits to the parents, without physical contact. They even set up a distribution point at a shop that one of the parents own. Such admirable ingenuity and determination.
On Wednesday, the moment of truth. Most of our students came back to campus to conduct the service, where we can support them the best. We booked many rooms so that each small team of 2 students can have a room and computer to themselves. Some students have to work from home in collaboration with their partner on campus.
Our students show the kids the lives of horseshoe crabs. They guide the kids through a virtual reality tour of the facility at Ocean Park for the study of dolphins stranded in the waters of Hong Kong. We had previously manufactured the 3D glasses and distributed to the kids to make it happen.
Using another kit, our students help the kids assemble a hydraulic robotic arm. Again, another kit designed, manufactured and sent to the kids earlier.
There is another robotic car driven with an elastic band through an elaborate set of gears.
The kids are having so much fun. The teacher and the parents are so happy with the result. We are so proud of our students and teaching team.
The corona virus is truly annoying. The social distancing is so so constraining. But we are determined to overcome all of these, to deliver something fun as well as educational for the kids. Their joy in learning, their questions, their laughter drive us on. Our students’ enthusiasm, effort to do a good job and improve, patience in guiding the kids, all drive us on.
The projects are real, the fun is real, the learning is real - for both the kids and our own students. The school, the teachers, the parents, us - we are all also learning. That if there is a will, there is most likely a way. Never give up.
Went running this morning when the sky cleared. By the time I got to the waterfront in Tsim Sha Tsui East, the clouds were closing in.When I go to the TST Ferry, the rain was pouring. I could barely see the IFC on HK Island, but not the ICC on Kowloon.
As I stood watching, strong wind from the East drove the rain and some of the clouds away towards the West. The sky cleared partially. The blue sky peeked through the clouds. It was amazing.
By the time I reached home, the rain came back. The same scenario repeated itself several times during the day. This is all due to the typhoon passing to the south of Hong Kong. All of these will pass. So will the virus.
Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for our government. When the government officials made announcements delaying the election, they tried to convince the audience no considerations were given to politics. I suspect they know in their own minds that the people of Hong Kong are not likely to be convinced.
The trust is no longer there. During the past year, there have been such arrogance. There have been so many bold-faced lies. They have tried so many times to force things through the legislature with their majority. They have so blatantly closed their eyes to the police brutality. They have stonewalled for so long on the legitimate demands from the people. They have so shamelessly disqualified popularly elected legislators.
It is very hard now, for the people to believe they are sincere in their policy making. That the delay is not at least partially due to the fear that the pro-establishment candidates will lose badly.
It is so sad, when a government has lost its trust from the people.
It is still possible to redeem itself. It is always possible. But it is hard to imagine that it has the willingness, and the will, to make the necessary changes to respond to the people. We need a miracle.
