Students as partners: Challenges and opportunities in the Asian context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Over the last twenty years, I have been working in three culturally, racially, and religiously diverse countries: India, Thailand, and Malaysia.While working in these diverse countries was an enriching experience in itself, I was also fortunate to work at places that were not only diverse within themselves but also provided me the opportunity to work with hundreds of people from around the world.One of my workplaces was a K-12 international school in Thailand that followed curriculum grounded in Western philosophy where teaching and learning practices were more student-centered as compared with most traditional schools in Asia that are predominately teacher-centered.As a result of the student-centred approach, which facilitated constructive learning and amplified student agency, I began to value students' voices.Thus, when I first came across the idea of Students as Partners (SaP) five years ago while conducting a literature review for my scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) project, I could instantly relate to it and decided to adopt it.Since then, I have been engaged with a number of SaP collaborations (e.g., Kaur, Awang-Hashim, & Kaur, 2019; Kaur, Noman, & Nordin, 2017), and I derive immense satisfaction from its outcomes.Encouraged by my positive experiences with SaP collaborations, I tried to promote this practice and began sharing this idea with my colleagues as a way to engage students actively.I experienced perplexity as well as resistance from them.Many of my colleagues responded that "students can be partners with peers but not with faculty as they have nothing much to offer me" or "teaching development is for the faculty, and students have no role in it."While I felt disappointed, I reflected upon the reasons for their reluctance to make sense of this idea or willingness to give it a try.I spoke to several of my colleagues, went through the literature, and concluded that this predicament is the result of social and cultural norms that determine roles and expectations for different positions.Liang and Matthews (2020), in their recent publication discussing the state of SaP in Asia, also highlighted that Confucian heritage culture (CHS), which is a philosophy that drives thoughts, beliefs, and societal norms, can be a barrier in the shaping of such teaching and learning practices that call for role revision.It is difficult for individuals to adopt practices from other cultures that are incongruent with their own culture.As a result, in this opinion piece, I discuss the underlying reasons for staff and student resistance to appreciating and embracing SaP at its face value in Asian contextnd argue that by adapting the language and accommodating the assumptions of SaP, individuals in Asian culture can enact the same values in culturally appropriate ways.I use illustrations from personal
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,025 | 0,018 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,030 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».