One of the first and most urgent tasks was to support the work of the Sub-Committee on Service-Learning Subjects (SCSLS, or sub-committee) in getting subject proposals developed, vetted and approved. Workshops were organised to publicise the various aspects of the Service-Learning Requirement: what types of subjects qualifies as service-learning, what are the expected learning outcomes, what are suitable projects, how to conduct and teach reflection, how to assess student performance, how to find suitable partners, how to develop and finance offshore projects, …? Speakers include staff who are familiar with the policy, such as Dr. Stephen Chan and Dr. K. P. Kwan. They include staff with experience in teaching service-learning, such as Dr. Grace Ngai of the Department of Computing. They may also be staff who may not be experts in teaching service-learning but nevertheless have experience in teaching relevant aspects such as reflection or assessment on service, such as Dr. Kevin Chan of the Department of Applied Social Studies. They may also include external expects such as Prof. Dayle Smith, then of the University of San Francisco. It turned out that there were plenty of resources that we could draw on.
Lots of tailor-made assistance were also needed. Many academics need help in turning general ideas into concrete proposals. Some are experienced teachers who have, surprisingly, never written a subject proposal before. Some need help in turning a vague idea of a service project into a concrete, feasible, executable project plan. Many need help in connecting to the target communities and partners. Some are simply getting frustrated when they find that it is not so easy to come up with a proposal that satisfies all the requirements. Patience and perseverance is as much in need as expertise.
It is somewhat surprising that many academic find it difficult to distinguish between (1) the sub-committee that vets and approves the subject proposals and (2) the Office of Service-Learning that assists them in designing the subject proposals. While the (staff of the) OSL do all they can to help the teachers design the syllabus, projects, assessments, etc., as best they can to satisfy the requirements laid down by the sub-committee, the OSL cannot predict whether the sub-committee would actually agree.
As can be expected, members of an academic committee often disagree even with each other, hence the decision on a proposal can be somewhat unpredictable. Academics generally are not surprised when they sit in a committee themselves. However, the propers often seem genuinely surprised then they are outside of a committee looking in, that this happens. Some teachers find it difficult to fully comprehend why a subject proposal developed with the assistance of the OSL, which they themselves feel confident about, would not be approved by the sub-committee. They confuse the Oil with the sub-committee and cannot imagine why other people may have a different opinion on their proposal. It often leads to discontent, which is quite unfortunate.
The confusion is sometimes compounded by the fact that the sub-committee often ask that the proposal be revised according to their comments. The members of the sub-committee do not see it as their duty to put in the time and effort to assist the proposers to revise the proposal, which can be a lengthy process. That task is often picked up by the OSL. Hence the proposers may vent this discontent at the OSL, forgetting that the OSL is actually trying to help.
It reminds us of one of the core challenges of teaching service-learning - to help our students to see an issue, any issue, from a point of view different from their own (the community, partner NGOs (particularly those from a foreign country), students from partner universities, their teachers, teammates, …) It appears that it is not just students who find that challenging. Even mature adults, experienced teachers, face the same challenge. A related observation is that, a teacher who had earlier complained about the overly critical vetting, would become equally critical in vetting other proposals once appointed to the sub-committee. It is one more piece of evidence that we are not always as objective as we’d like to think of ourselves, that we often change our minds once our position, and hence interests, change.
In the process, however, we also discover many passionate academics keen on helping students engage with societal issues. Many have been looking for channels to engage and apply their expertise. They find service-learning a welcome opportunity. Many feel stimulated, challenged, energised and revitalised. The process can be frustrating and even painful. But eventually satisfying and even rewarding.
No comments:
Post a Comment