Knowledge at a Distance

At the University of Macau and recently at CityU I have been struck by how "knowledge" is put at arms length. I work with faculty on their General Education course proposals. Sometimes I feel like I am doing strategic planning: ok, here is the list of all the topics you are going to cover, but what is the BIG idea or top three themes that hold it together? Where is the subject matter headed? What do you REALLY want the students to understand by the end? Let's clarify this before we worry about assessment. You could just call the typical approach to be focused on memorization, but this week I had several glimpses at what may lay behind it. When talking over a course proposal with one faculty member on consumerism and the law, it was evident that the topic for which he had great passion. He had been involved in the consumer's organization, had ideas related to consumerism and the history of the British related to civil society as well as a real concern for the future of Hong Kong and the desire to help students see that they make choices that impact society. But the course didn't reflect it--it was a list of topics. I said to him--this is your chance to really share something of yourself and your concerns and interpretation of Hong Kong and challenge students to think about their role in shaping society. He got something of a frightened look and said something about how he shouldn't take a particular position and so I backed off a bit and we talked about how a variety of views could be presented. I then had something of a similar discussion over another course with a group of faculty, a course that will be required of all students.

Course material is kept at arms length. What then happens (and not just in Hong Kong) is that faculty then replace their "voice" with lists of facts. Students are left without a chance to incorporate learning into their self-understanding because it is not being modeled by faculty--the faculty cannot talk about the meaning of this material to themselves personally and their own life journeys. But perhaps more significantly, teaching is not very meaningful because it isn't build on building relationships with the students. And it is at these moments on honesty and transparency that true learning occurs on the part of both the faculty member and the student.

In this context, the modeling of transparency and meaning-making in the classroom is equated with "advocacy" for a position. Where does this come from? It could come from a culture of not wanting to take a position because of an emphasis on harmony. It could come from fear rooted in the oppressive history of mainland China. On my part, I need to work at clarifying what I mean when I say they should share something of themselves. I struggle with the difficulties--you have to have "voice" and share something of yourself to be effective in the classroom. There is a fine line between this type of transparency and advocacy which becomes oppressive. But I don't know how to describe the difference except to say that one is grounded in sharing a life journey and the other is "telling." Maybe advocacy is just another form of distancing yourself from the material.