SLS - Building and Piloting 2b - Sub-Committee on Service-Learning Subjects

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:

1. 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. 
2. 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. 
3. 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.  
4. The students are expected to provide mainly routine operations, without higher order challenges to learn from.  For example, providing menial labour for construction.  
5. 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.
6. 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. 
7. The proposed teaching/service and the background/qualification/experience of the proposers do not seem to match.  
8. 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.