As soon as we landed in Rwanda in July 2013, we tried to learn as much as possible what Rwanda is really like, how AEE operates, how our planned projects can be carried out, how much can we realistically achieve given the circumstances, where can we purchase needed supplies, how do we actually travel to the site, etc. We did ask a lot of these questions before coming here, and received some information and photos. But it was difficult to plan in the level of detail that we really need. It is partly because of the poor telephone links and Internet connections between Rwanda and Hong Kong, but also because of the fundamental differences between our perceptions, understanding of each other and what each of us want from the collaboration. For example, we did not really know the condition of the guest house where we are staying for the duration of the project. It turned out to be perfect for our needs - basic, but clean and quite, with plenty of space to work; but we could not be sure of that before we came, not because we didn’t try. Within hours of arriving in the country, we learned so much about life in Rwanda just by walking around the neighbourhood and visiting the local wet market.
We could have but did not send an advance team here for a pre-visit ahead of the actual project. It was mainly because of the great cost of travelling here, in terms of time, finances, and the logistics. Flying time alone is at least 16 hours. The layover in between (particularly at Doha) can be as much as 12 hours, partly because we wish to reduce the cost of the plane ticket. Hence making a one-way trip last for up to 28 hours. We did not end up getting punished much on this particular project because of the lack of a pre-visit to gain first hand knowledge and direct negotiations — because of a number of reasons. AEE is such a wonderful, accommodating, resourceful well-connected and experienced partner. We had quite a bit of experience with other projects earlier. We prepared well. Our team of teams are exceptionally capable and have a great attitude. Above all we had been fortunate. But a lot of things could have gone wrong and caused the project to fail or some disaster to happen. It is a risk that we vow never to take again. From then on, a pre-visit to learn about the site, partners, transportation, provisions, risks, face-to-face meetings to take the measure of the partner and let them get to know us, …, must be done for a new site or new project. We have a responsibility to the students as well as the university to make the project as successful and as risk-free as possible.
This lack of a pre-visit and the subsequent commitment to make one is part of a lesson that we have learned and a fundamental change in understanding in our minds of what service-learning is about. For a long time, we think of service-learning as something that the students do, that they are the focus of attention. The teachers, the assistants, the infrastructure are all there to facilitate the students’ work. What the teachers and assistants do are the “overhead” that must be minimised. That remains the perception of many people involved with service-learning, including, very importantly, many funders and administrators.
We have gradually realised that this picture is far from complete and can actually be quite damaging. Part of the reason that we did not send one or two staff members to Rwanda to scout out the site and make preparations is because we wanted to save the money and the time. So that we can spend as much as possible the funding that we have secured on the students’ expenses, rather than the staff. If we skip the pre-visit by the staff, we may be able to send more students on the actual project. That is, in fact, what many donors demand and continue to demand. Often they are willing to fund the students’ expenses but not that of the staff. And often the administrators take the same view.
However, we have been learning again and again, that the pre-visit by the professors and assistants is critical to the success of the actual project by the students. Without the local knowledge and careful preparation, we may be taking too much risk on many aspects: whether the need is really there, whether the proposed solution is appropriate and feasible, whether the partners truly understands what we are planning to do, whether the site is safe, whether the students are prepared appropriately, … And we need to send the appropriate staff to accompany the students, to guide them in identifying the need and the solution, to teach the students just-in-time when they most need it and appreciate it, to help them reflect on their experiences when it is fresh and the feeling raw. The pre-visit, the teacher, the assistants and their work is not “overhead”. These are critical, core to the success of the service-learning project carried out by the students, and the students’ learning. Students generally do not automatically learn from their experiences, otherwise there is not need for them to attend structured teaching at the university. In fact, the professors are the key to the initial success, continuity, continued improvement, overall sustainability of the program. They are the carrier of the spirit and vision of the program. Students come and go. It is the teachers and the staff who stay and carry the flag. This is a key message that we have to convey.
No comments:
Post a Comment