The educational pendulum – a step too far?

 

S

Something is wrong in the kingdom of Denmark, educationally speaking. or so it seems to me. The attitude towards and, consequently, of educational institutions has changed 180 degrees over my life. They have gone from being a provider of God-inspired, figuratively, wisdom to an issuer of career–required, literally speaking, certificates. The teacher, once the kingpin, has become a cog in a complicated system of wheels powered by money. I understand the change and appreciate how much it has improved education but I feel it is time for the pendulum to go in the other direction.

The journey of my generation began with the teacher as God’s assistant (or maybe vice versa). Teachers decided what we needed to learn, which was accepted without question by both students, their parents and administrators. The system created a dogma, often unjustified, that educators somehow knew what we, the students, needed to understand in order to be successful in life. Questioning was taboo, as I discovered as late as 2000 when I did my MBA at a British university. During my college years, in the 1970’s, at some universities, such as UCSC where I studied, it was possible to talk with teachers on a friendly basis and even disagree about interpretation. However, nobody, including the college administration, openly disputed the teacher’s basis for assessment and the right to fail those that did not meet their criteria.

Today, in many if not most institutes of higher education worldwide, students are the customers, i.e., the college needs their tuition to survive. As high school testing standards have deteriorated over the decades, the gap between the assumed and actual knowledge of students beginning their degree programs has widened significantly. This discrepancy, combined with the ever-increasing tuition fees, has created a serious financial dilemma for college administrators: colleges need paying students in order to be able to keep their doors open. At the same time, the academization of professional life has made attaining the appropriate certificates essential for attaining most jobs, e.g., BAs for nurses. Finally, fundamental faith in the system, the belief that the people up there know what they are doing, has dropped to critical levels, also often justifiably. These crises together have created an atmosphere where an unspoken agreement exists in which students, their parents, administrators and even many teachers believe that an institution, when faced with a conflict between a student’s lack of knowledge and need for the certificate, should opt to issue the latter. Colleges and universities have become, to one degree or another, factories for diplomas, not actual knowledge. Interestingly enough, most people recognize and accept this phenomenon.

I, as a “dinosaur” who will retire from institutional college teaching in Israel in three semesters, find it disturbing that too many first-year Israeli engineering students I teach can pass my English course without knowing how to write a proper sentence in English or even in their native tongue, let alone a paragraph, not to mention create an organized argument. For me, effective communication is an essential skill. The world does not care if English is the second or even third language. As I tell my students, if a customer asks whether or not a bridge will bear a given weight, you need to be able to produce a coherent answer. My college, to be fair, is slightly more insistent on keeping testing standards up than many others. However, the unspoken and spoken message is that it is not “good for the college or department” if too many students fail. Teachers, beware.

At the same time, students should be made aware that they will be shortly entering the world of real work without many of the tools they need to be effective and that this lack will impact their own professional lives, not to mention those affected by the results of their work. It is clear that the omniscient and omnipotent status of teachers not so long ago was unjustified and harmful. On the other hand, the perception of a teacher as a clerk functioning as a cog in the system is equally unjustified and harmful. It is time to find a reasonable medium between these two extremes. The pendulum needs to start swinging in the other direction.

Rezooming the academic year

 

 

[Lens*]

In a one month, after the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, I will begin another year of teaching English to engineering students, my 28^th year, at the Braude School of Engineering in Karmiel, Israel.  Unlike last autumn and those previous, I will not be meeting them personally as circumstances require remote teaching through Zoom. Last semester, both students and teachers worldwide got acquainted, as intimately as possible, with this technology but it was like a first date, fraught with tension and nervousness. This time, we will be meeting as old friends, with some knowledge and comfort with each other. As it is considered wisdom to focus on the blessings you enjoy rather than the momentary shortcomings, teaching through Zoom does have its advantages for teachers and students.

Teachers will certainly enjoy the both the familiarity with the technology and distance from the students. After one full semester experimenting with the options and techniques for presenting various types of material, it will be a pleasure to begin a semester with reasonable certainty in regards to the pedagogical approach. In simple language, starting every lesson fearing potential technical issues is quite tiring. Teachers now have the basics down. Furthermore, while non-traditional, the physical distance from the students is also non-emotional. Zoom teaching is vedi, vici, exii, I came, I conquered, I exited. Teachers have very little emotional contact with the students. While this lack of human touch reduces the effectiveness of teaching, it also significantly reduces the weight of personal preferences in issuing grades, i.e., the students are mainly just faces. On a more important note, at least for college students, it places almost the entire responsibility for learning on the students in terms of their focus during and beyond the Zoom sessions. The role of the teacher is heavily limited to preparing proper explanatory material and providing understandable explanations. The rest is on the students.

They also gain in terms of being allowed to study according to their personal style. Every student has a preferred way of learning and reviewing material. Some requires extreme focus to grasp and remember while others learn more through osmosis, their brain absorbing the material as they play with their phone or do crosswords (the latter was my particular style). In the latter case, as this seeming distain tends to annoy flesh-and-blood lecturers, Zoom lessons allow them to do whatever they want during the lesson without causing offense. Moreover, they are able to go to the bathroom or get a sandwich without asking permission or disturbing other students. For slower-grasping learners, the recorded Zoom lessons create an opportunity to absorb one point at a time or reinforce key points. Clearly, Zoom is a boom for certain types of learners.

Both teachers and students benefit from the convenience and economic impact of Zoom. Nobody can argue that commuting to college is fun, whether in terms of time or parking spots. Most colleges suffer from a terrible lack of parking spaces. As for the hours, how many students really enjoy 8 o’clock classes, morning or evening? Even when the classes are being given at those hours, once the camera is turned off, students do not have to be present, whether physically or mentally, nor do teachers have to enforce active presence, a relief for both parties. Most importantly, Zoom allows the show to go on despite the Corona.  Even one year without schooling, regardless of the level, would be an educational and professional disaster for students and financial disaster for teachers. Zoom allows a semblance of continuity.

I am fully aware of the disadvantages and difficulties involved in Zoom teaching both for teachers and students. However, I am also aware of the millions of people that have lost their livelihood and businesses due to the Corona virus. I therefore choose to join Bing Crosby, the Andrew Sisters and Johnny Mercer, to name a few, and accentuate the positive and resume teaching with a smile.

* Caption pictures to allow the blind to fully enjoy your posts. Picture: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/PhotoMIX-Company-1546875/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=3151078">Photo Mix</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=3151078">Pixabay</a>

Going against the grain and linguistic sexism

Words reflect and create expectations beyond their immediate meaning. In the case of certain professions, they bring into mind a picture of a man or woman often based on historical patterns. This prejudice requires the minority gender to define itself against the established term.

One way is to add the gender definer to the profession.  In reality, there are many male nurses, male prostitutes and male secretaries. They are obliged to add the descriptive word to provide an accurate image of themselves.  Otherwise, without a picture, the reader would assume a woman. Likewise, the terms driver, pilot and judge have their feminine version, i.e. woman driver, female pilot and, in French, Madame le juge. Despite the number of women in these professions, the image remains male.

In some cases, languages change the term to break the stereotype. Policemen and police women are collectively referred to as law enforcement officers, a completely gender-neutral term. Firewomen are included in the term firefighters. All meetings have a chairperson to reflect the number of women in management.  Finally, to deal with a very complicated situation, the terms father and mother in school registration forms are slowly being replaced by Parent 1 and Parent 2 to allow for single sex couples with children.

Some languages, especially Arabic and Hebrew, cannot always gracefully solve the issue. At the elementary school level in Israel, the fast majority of the teachers, 95 per cent, are female. Yet, if there is one male teacher at a staff meeting, should they be addressed as morot, the feminine plural form, or morim, the masculine plural form? The rules of grammar suggest the latter while common sense would imply the former.  The only elegant but wordy solution is to say morim and morot, yes with the masculine form first as placing the feminine form first sounds a little odd in Hebrew.

So, those pioneers that desire to break the gender barriers to certain profession not only have to cope with prejudice and lack of confidence but also with linguistic stigmas.  They must verbally define themselves in opposition to societal expectation.