Academic vision seems set, and it’s safe (safe!) to say that all consultations are keyed to implementation: hows and whats, not whys and why reallys.
Kindly note that I remain unconvinced that the system has chosen the most humane course of action. I remain appalled at the ill-hid relish, for yes, the pandemic sped things up toward a certain pedagogical direction. I tried to think past the disgust, and laid the arguments on the table (ex: “the way the brains are wired today,” “the best of yesterday’s teachers won’t suffice,” etc.) but found them wanting (ex: our best teachers would not have tolerated faulty “wiring”).
Arguments are conflated, and for a while there it seemed that remote learning, learner-centrism, OBE, all held hands and teased equity, better education, our best selves shining through.
Old things are passed off as new and untried. Life-long learner? Isn’t that what centuries of art and literature represented, strove for? Isn’t that what we in the Humanities (and our teachers, their teachers before them) have been working on all along?
Learning until it runs out.
—
The impasse in implementation is the balance between compassion and quality, and while the plenaries and breakouts touch upon these, in the end the burden will fall on teachers if we deliver poorly or if our students suffer.
How I wish we set a better example to the HEIs, a year of truly vital thoughts and honorable acts, a year greater than, ooh, a pandemic, time to bring out the new toolkit.
Please be assured though that I will try my best within the given constraints. While not as feathery as “better normal,” I still hope we won’t come out of this too diminished.
You are likely taking much more than the rest of us, so again, thank you for your kind attention.
—
Oh, more to read. If I was sending this pack, I’d start us off with “The Fantasy of Resistance” in How Will the Pandemic Change Higher Ed, p.6.
—
Isang beses ko pa lang nababasa pero mukhang natatamaan lahat. Hay, pinaniniwalaan ito at sine-share nang wagas pero tayo rin naman ang kumikilos para buuin nang husto ang semestre at sa lalong madaling panahon. May ilang banda kung saan gusto kong i-tono o i-adjust o i-revise para mas makuha ang pinagdadaanan natin. Halimbawa, yung “atomization” ng artik vis-à-vis (not necessarily versus) yung “collaboration” na hinihiling sa atin. Ngayon ko rin lang nakasalubong ang salitang “responsibilizing”. Maraming hindi katanggap-tanggap para sa akin sa mga lumalabas sa admin featurettes pero siguro pinakamapanganib yung laging pangsara na ginagawa natin lahat ng ito dahil national university tayo. Na para bang hindi UP ang mga alternatibong pananaw at diskarte sa panahong ito. Maganda naman na at least sa mga sarbey at mga “like” sa Q&A, may pahiwatig na hindi 100% on-board ang faculty sa ibinebenta. Sorry sa term na “ibinebenta,” pero lagpas sa mga pedagogical terms at trends, lagpas sa covid-sensitive diplomacy, hindi ko tayo maibukod kay JoeCon.
Isang pag-iingat ngayon ay kung ano-ano ang mga ipasasalo sa faculty. Sa ngayon, tayo na ang hinihiling na maging maunawain sa admin at mapagkalinga sa estudyante, maging malikhain, mabusisi, at collaborative sa course material/delivery, at maging exacting(!) at quality-focused(!) pagdating sa sarili at sa mga estudyante. Iyan pa lang ang mga hayag, wala pa tayo sa mga kubling rekisito: hal., kalimutan ang covid at mga kaugnay na pagdurusa, huwag munang isama sa usapan ang pre-covid state of affairs na mas lumalala lamang ngayon.
O malamang sa atin sa Humanities at SocSci: paki-integrate na lang itong mga ganap sa course pack.
Maganda ang artik lalo ang huling bahagi nito, pero iba ang bigat ng iyong ikaapat na pangungusap. Nangangamba rin ako para sa atin bilang grupo at bilang mga indibidwal, at baka mawala tayo. Sumulat na rin ako sa kanya bago pa mag-dialogue tungkol sa mga pangambang ito dahil gaya mo, umaasa rin akong hindi pa huli ang lahat.
—
May kaunting tulo ang kisame namin dito; sana wala riyan!
