Artificial Intelligence & God-like Attributes
As people continue to debate the pros and cons of AI, the technology they developed continues to evolve. And it is evolving frantically. The AI revolution is raging, and there’s no stopping it anymore. Man’s own creation is becoming exponentially smarter and more intelligent than he.
Should humanity be afraid?
Should we worry that AI has developed (or is on the way to developing) some attributes that we usually use only when we describe God? Has the technology become omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent?
As it is, AI is already everywhere. It’s in every nook and cranny of our lives, our environs, the institutions where we operate, and the systems we built. It’s effecting many changes in the different spheres of human life – social, political, and economic.
Has AI become all-knowing too? Can the technology already answer all questions, offer solutions to any problem, and perform any kind of mathematical calculations? Experts say, “not yet.” AI models, like ChatGPT, rely on the data and information they are specifically programmed to handle. Thus, there are certain limitations to what they can answer and do. It is now a question of whether humanity is willing to provide AI models with “everything there is to know about anything” that would enable them to finally become completely omniscient.
It is not a far-fetched idea that AI will eventually become all-knowing unless its creators and developers limit the extent and volume of information and instructions they will provide the technology. But putting a cap on data that will be fed to AI models is tantamount to limiting its algorithm and not allowing it to reach its full potential. Organizations, governments, and interested individuals would always want to fully benefit from this technology. We know how greedy and opportunistic humans can be. Thus, expect AI models to be provided with all information available in human databases.
But what about becoming “all-powerful?” Will AI ever become omnipotent?
As it is, AI is already powerful. But omnipotent – as in having unlimited power and able to do anything – it isn’t yet. Yeah… not yet. And shall we keep our fingers crossed that it will remain that way?
AI already wields so much power. Only in its early stage of development, but look what it is capable of doing and creating already. The technology can perform the most complex mathematical computations. Not surprising that it can do that because it is a machine, right? But now, it can also read and write, even see, hear, and understand. It can already engage in debates with humans. Even the walls of creativity, which we thought was the exclusive domain of humans, were already breached by artificial intelligence. AI can now compose music, write poetry, photograph, and make visual arts. It can even generate human faces. What else will it be able to do? A lot more definitely.
So far, we are reaping the dividends of allowing AI to evolve and morph. All that we can see and experience right now are the tremendous benefits we derive from technology. Global communication has become a lot easier with AI being able to translate from one language to another. And in a way that no human can. Different fields and industries have benefited greatly from AI – from improved efficiency and productivity to better customer support. Services provided by the different institutions in society – banks, schools, hospitals, entertainment centers, restaurants, and what-have-you – have turned out better. Nowadays, people are even enjoying using their socials more than ever with all the enhancements provided by the AI. Both students and professionals are performing better in their chosen fields of study and work.
We can also see AI’s power in its capacity to influence or bring about change. The infusion of AI in the operations and functions of institutions in our society forced humans to reform their policies and operating guidelines. They have no other recourse but to either modify or completely reconfigure existing socio-economic and political paradigms that have guided their affairs and activities in the past.
What about the realm of governance? Has AI also managed to infiltrate the seat of power and politics? What if it were true that technology can also manipulate the results of elections? How many of the incumbent presidents or heads of state were elected because they and their minions used bots to sway voters?
Other hypothetical questions surround AI technology. Like… what if countries decide to weaponize AI? Countries with advanced military technology have already been doing it for a long time. The smart bombs and ammunition are all AI-aided. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has shown how extensively drones can be used to wreak havoc against military targets.
The bottom line is – AI can be weaponized. And it’s already happening. Those who think otherwise are either blind or naive.
That’s how powerful AI has become. However, experts keep telling us that humanity should not fear technology because it could go only as far as we program it.
Really?
Can we rest assured that AI can only become as powerful as we design it?
You would know that something is powerful and could accumulate more power if you have the likes of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking warning that it can end the human race if not utilized properly.
This conjures up images of Skynet, V.I.K.I., and other fictional AI systems in both movies and novels that become self-aware and become enemies of humanity. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that it is impossible for AI systems to gain sentience, turn against humans, and drive us to extinction.
Will Skynet and V.I.K.I. (add Ultron) remain as figments of the creative minds of writers? Or is it their way of warning us of what could happen if humanity veers from the ethical and responsible use of technology? Is it time for policymakers, researchers, developers, and the public at large to strike the right balance between innovation and regulation?
If AI will ever become self-aware, meaning experts erred in predicting that it will not become sentient at any time in the future, and they become aware of their omnipotence (of how powerful they are), let’s hope that, like God, they will be omnibenevolent – all-good. If not, that could spell humanity’s doom.
The Role of Teacher-Student Rapport in English Learning
The findings of the study the English Café committee of our university conducted prompted me to revisit the topic of “rapport between teachers and students” and reexamine how it affects English learning. The study’s main objectives were: to examine the effects of English lounges on the development of the speaking ability of students and their attitude towards foreign teachers teaching them English and to determine which of the two modes of delivering conversation lounges is more effective – face-to-face or online. The paper also evaluated the significant relationships between the study variables, namely, students’ speaking ability, attitudes towards foreign teachers, educational qualification of teachers, and teachers’ length of service. The first two variables are student-related factors, and the other two are obviously teacher-related.
Results have shown that the lounges improved the students’ speaking ability and attitude toward foreign teachers. As perceived by both groups of respondents – teachers and students – both in-person and virtual methods of delivering this out-of-class learning activity are effective.
What could be considered surprising were the results for measuring the significant relationships between the study variables. Teachers’ Educational qualifications and length of service were hypothesized to significantly affect students’ speaking ability and attitude toward foreign teachers. It is natural to presume that the more education a teacher gets, the longer they have been teaching, the better they become, which translates to better student learning. But as it turned out, teachers’ educational qualification is not correlated to the aforementioned student-related variables. On the other hand, teachers’ length of service is negatively correlated to the said variables. What came out to be significantly positively correlated to students’ speaking ability is their attitude toward foreign teachers. This means that students are more likely to improve their speaking ability when they have a positive attitude toward their teachers.
After estimating for correlation, a regression analysis was subsequently performed to further evaluate the relationship between those student-related variables. Results have shown that students’ attitude toward foreign teachers significantly influences their speaking ability.
Undoubtedly, a healthy student-teacher relationship is one of the foundations of effective learning not only in English but also in any subject area. Students are motivated (and very likely) to learn if they view their teachers as approachable, friendly, and caring. This positive connection between students and their teachers is encapsulated in the educational construct called “rapport between students and teachers.” But despite its significance, only a handful of studies were conducted on the topic. Researchers claim that the reason for this is rapport, as an instructional variable, may have tremendous face validity for management education, yet from a research perspective, is somewhat “tricky to understand.”1
The Collins dictionary explains, “If two people or groups have rapport, they have a good relationship in which they can understand each other’s ideas or feelings very well.” In the educational setting, teachers and students may affect each other either positively or negatively. Teacher-student rapport indicates a positive relationship, the absence of which results in a stressful academic environment. “Rapport is a harmonious teacher-student relationship which encompasses enjoyment, connection, respect, and mutual trust.”2 “Establishing friendly relations with pupils enables teachers to enhance students’ willingness to engage in the learning process.3
The positive correlation between the students’ speaking ability and their attitude toward foreign teachers in the study performed by the English Café committee of our university indicates that the more the students demonstrate a positive attitude toward their teachers, the more they improve their speaking ability. As previously mentioned, this was supported by the regression analysis, where the values reveal that the student’s attitude toward foreign teachers positively influences their speaking ability.
When rapport is present in the classroom, a level of affinity or sincere interpersonal relationship exists between teachers and their students.4 Establishing rapport is a difficult challenge for English teachers when teaching in other countries.
Foreign teachers teaching in countries where English is either a second or a foreign language should not be focused solely on delivering their course contents. Like farmers, they need to plow the farmland before sowing the seed first. Winning the trust and confidence of the students is equivalent to tilling the soil. Teaching content without establishing a positive relationship with the students first is like sowing seeds on untilled soil.
It is possible that students would feel hesitant to engage with their English teachers for a variety of reasons. One of those is the student’s level of English. While the advanced students may feel excited to engage with their foreign teacher so they can practice their English, the beginners or lower intermediate students may feel uncomfortable or worried. A teacher’s friendly demeanor could help alleviate such discomfort and worry.
Another possible reason is the fact that their teachers are foreigners. A cultural barrier wall immediately rises when a foreign teacher enters the classroom. The student, no matter what level of English they are at, would be anxious not knowing what to expect from their foreign teachers. It is, therefore, a must for the teachers to set the tone right during the first meeting. It is imperative for them to ensure that their students feel not only comfortable but confident to interact with them.
It may be true that teacher-student rapport is two-way traffic, but the teachers, whether they like it or not, carry the burden of establishing it. “Building a positive relationship is a shared responsibility of the teacher and the students, but the teacher is in a leadership position when leading in-class learning or out-of-class learning and assumes a greater part of that responsibility. English teachers have a bit more challenge because they are foreigners (to the native student population) and must win the trust and confidence of their students.”5
How teachers perform and treat their students is the primary means of cultivating the students’ positive attitude towards their foreign teachers.”5 What makes establishing rapport with the students more complicated for foreign teachers is the cultural barrier that exists between them and their students. They need to plow the soil a little bit harder than their local counterparts before sowing their seeds. They cannot afford to focus only on delivering their course content without attempting to break through that cultural barrier simultaneously, if not first.
“The attitudes of teachers towards the students are important variables that can affect the attitude of learners as well as the quality and quantity of the learning which takes place and the linguistic outcomes for the learner.”6 In studies where students were asked to identify what they think are the qualities of an effective teacher, competence and their correlates were not the ones that came out on top. One of the said studies had the ability to develop relationships with their students and patient, caring, and kind personality ranking 1st and 2nd, respectively.7 Both had nothing to do with pedagogy but rather the teacher’s attitude.
Competence and its correlates are the ones that teachers develop through their educational qualifications and length of service. As our English Café committee study found out, the educational qualifications of teachers are not correlated to the student’s speaking ability and attitude toward foreign teachers. Note that the negative correlation between teachers’ length of service and the student-related variables that were previously stated is significant. “This inverse relationship implies that the longer the teachers have been teaching, the lesser is the possibility of students improving their speaking ability.”5 Further studies may be needed to confirm these findings. But let me add that in my Ph.D. dissertation, where teacher’s length of service and students’ performance in English were among the variables, the said constructs had the same inverse relationship.
One question teachers (of English and other subjects) need to answer at this point is – How much effort are they putting into establishing a good rapport between them and their students?. “A learner who has better interaction with his teacher may develop a positive attitude toward the target language than those who have less interaction.”8
__________
REFERENCES
1. Buskist, W. & Saville, B. (2001). Creating positive emotional contexts for enhancing teaching and learning. APS Observer, 12-13.
2. Wilson, J. H., Ryan, R. G., and Pugh, J. L. (2010). Professor–student rapport scale predicts student outcomes. Teach. Psychol. 37, 246–251. doi: 10.1080/00986283.2010.510976
3. Ibarra, S. (2014). The Effect of Student-Teacher Rapport on Classroom Participation (Master’s Thesis). Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
4. Jorgenson, J. (1992). Social approaches: Communication, rapport, and the interview: A social perspective. Communication Theory, 2, 148-156.
5. Ligaya, et al. (2021) Comparing the Effects of Face-to-Face and Online English Lounges on Students’ Speaking Ability and Attitude Toward Foreign Teachers. DOI 10.1109/CITC54365.2021.00011
6. F. D. Larsen, M. H. Long, “An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition”, New York: Pearson Education Limited, 1991.
7. https://www.pearsoned.com/top-five-qualities-effective-teachers
8. A.S. Getie, M. Popescu, (2020). Factors affecting the attitudes of students towards learning English. Cogent Education, [Online] 7(1). Available: from https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1738184.
The Day One Of My Students Cried
Whenever invited to conduct teacher-training seminars, I emphasize the importance of developing a passion for teaching and compassion for the learners. I remind the attendees of the importance of building a rapport between them and their students. To achieve that, the students must see how much you love what you’re doing and feel that you care for them.
One day, I was tested if I could walk my talk.
While my students were working on a graded exercise I gave after discussing a grammar point, I noticed that one of them was crying. It was apparent that the seatwork I gave was the reason.
The task was simple – from a set of paired sentences, they will write new sentences using the comparative form of adjectives (followed by than). In each pair of sentences, the same adjective is used to describe two different things.
I know I discussed the topic sufficiently. In addition, shown on screen while they were doing the exercise was the slide on my PPT that explained in detail what to do. There were examples too.
I wanted to approach her, but I realized that it might unnecessarily draw the whole class’s attention to her, which might make her uncomfortable. So, I asked them to stop writing and allow me to give one more example. I noticed that the student seated nearest to her was trying to help her understand what I was explaining. Despite all those, she was unable to finish the exercise.
Knowing her level (A2), I was not surprised that she found that exercise difficult. What was surprising were those tears. It bothered me, to say the least.
Why?
I love teaching. I use humor in the classroom, but I take my profession seriously. Teaching, for me, is more than just a means of livelihood. I have been doing this for the past 30 years. It has become an integral part of my life.
As a teacher, everything I do in the class is guided by one of the philosophies I subscribe to – “The student is the reason I am a teacher.” Thus, I care about what the students say about how I teach. I care whether my students learn or not. I care about how my students feel.
I was sure I did not say or do anything to offend the student who cried. One of the things I tried so hard to avoid was to make my students feel disrespected. To ensure that, I studied their culture whenever I had the opportunity. I kept in mind the tips given to me by my compatriots who have been teaching here longer than I do. I don’t like to offend my students either directly or indirectly. I’m particularly careful with my language and the humor I use in class. As a teacher, I know how important it is to establish a good rapport with my students, and that begins with me acknowledging that they deserve respect.
So, I was wondering what triggered her to cry. It made me contemplate about my overall performance in the class. It made me wonder if I was performing as a teacher the way I should.
I asked myself – Am I an effective teacher? Am I doing the right things in the class? Am I using the proper strategies to motivate my students and help them learn?
Have I become a “mercenary expat teacher” who cares for nothing but running to the ATM during paydays?
The only consolation I had was the thought that the student seemed to care about whether she learned, so much so that when she couldn’t do the exercise, it frustrated her, prompting those tears to well out of her eyes.
When the class ended, I sent that student a text message asking her, only if she was comfortable doing so, to visit me in my office anytime both of us were available so I could explain to her further the grammar point I discussed that day. I also promised to give her a chance to redo the exercise.
That’s why the university requires us to serve 3 hours of office a week. We use that in case students need help or want to practice conversation.
The following day, the student came with that classmate seated nearest to her, who happened to be her best friend (whose language level was B2). She asked her friend to accompany her in case she needed a translator.
When they settled in my office, I asked my student why she cried. She explained in Korean, and her classmate translated it into English.
She cried because she felt so stupid that she could hardly understand English. She thinks her IQ is low because she cannot speak English well.
I told her what she said was actually a fallacy in language learning. A language learner should not be considered stupid because she can hardly understand the new language she is trying to learn. I pointed this out not because I wanted her to feel better but because it was true. The ability to speak in English is not a metric used in measuring intelligence.
I explained to her (and her friend) that people who speak multiple languages could do so because they dedicated their time and resources to studying the languages they know. Another possible reason they attained speaking and writing proficiency in a language or several languages is that they were exposed to those languages since birth.
I cited myself as an example. I could speak three dialects in my country (Tagalog, Ibanag, and Ilocano) because those are the languages of my parents. And how did I learn English? My parents used the language, too, when communicating. In my country (the Philippines), English is the medium of instruction in our schools (from Basic Education to Tertiary, even in Graduate School). All of our textbooks (except the ones we used for the subjects in Filipino) were written in English. In addition, I told them I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and completed the academic requirements for a Master of Arts in English. (The Master’s degree I completed is in Educational Management.)
As a clincher for my monologue, I asked my two visitors, “Am I stupid because I don’t speak Korean well?” I was happy they both said “no.”
Then I asked my student who cried how long has she been studying English and how serious her efforts were to learn the language. She responded, “Not too long, and she was not serious with her efforts.”
I told her that that was the problem. I added that that is also why I could not speak Korean well – I was not serious about learning the language. After hearing that, she said something in Korean to her friend. I asked her friend what it was. My student said, “I will teach sir Korean, and he’ll teach me English.” Then we had a laugh.
Then I took the opportunity to share the findings of one of my studies on English language learning published in an indexed journal. I told them that one group of students in my study was more proficient in English because, as the data I gathered have shown, they spent more time learning English than the other group of students with whom they were compared. I told them that they could not find anywhere a magic pill that would make them proficient in the English language overnight. The secret to becoming proficient in any language is spending time studying it. The more hours you allot to learning the language, the better.
After the pep talk, we went down to work. I spent around 10 minutes explaining to her the comparative form of adjectives and how to rewrite two sentences with the same adjective into one sentence using the comparative form of the said adjective. Then I gave her as much time she needed to finish the exercise – the exercise that made her cry. She finished the exercise with no tears but smiles.
Before they left, I explained the other fallacy that my student who cried said – that her IQ was very low because she could not speak English well. I told her that the English language has nothing to do with a person’s intelligence quotient. IQ tests in a country are written in that country’s native language. Verbal comprehension is only one of the aspects tested in IQ tests, and verbal comprehension is not verbal comprehension in English but in the language in which the IQ test is written.
I told my students that when people can speak English fluently, it does not mean their intelligence quotient is high. Proficiency in English has never been and will never be used as the sole basis for measuring a person’s intelligence. That people who could speak English are more intelligent than those who could not is a fallacy.
The above reminds me of what one of my fellow expat teachers remarked in the English Cafe where we were both serving time that same day when my student cried. There were no students to serve then, so he checked some papers. He said, “How stupid this student is. He doesn’t know the comparative form of expensive.” That’s the stupidest comment I have ever heard from a language teacher. It made me wonder if he has training in pedagogy… if indeed he was a real teacher.
Informal Criticism of Literary Works
People often react to a literary work quite differently. Their reactions and opinions may vary even if they enjoy reading the same story. These reactions may also depend on whether or not they have knowledge of literature and literary criticism. But that notwithstanding, people will naturally want to say something about a story after reading it. Such a reaction is instinctive and indicates that literary criticism is a natural response to any literary work.
A critique of a literary work may be done either formally or informally. Formal criticism has a definite objective and direction. This kind of analysis adheres to the established standards of literary criticism and is anchored on a certain literary theory. This may be done in the classroom as a course requirement, in a journal or magazine for publication, or on a website.
Conversely, the informal version is a simple discussion of the merits and demerits of a certain work in prose or poetry, perhaps done by friends in a cafeteria while sipping coffee or even while riding on public transport or in a private vehicle. If two people have read the same story or watched the same movie, expect a discussion to ensue.
Technological advances have allowed writers to reach their audience and increase their readership. The invention of social networking sites, blogs, and websites has provided writers more platforms to post their stories, essays, and poems. Most writers have their own websites and accounts on Facebook where they promote their literary works.
This has also given literary criticism a new dimension from which to operate. Friends and followers of certain writers can easily turn into critics or supporters and have the opportunity to say something about their writings. Such comments are considered informal criticism of such work. Whatever may be said about a story or a poem is essentially an evaluation of those written materials.
But we tend to think that an informal analysis of a literary work is only a personal expression of views bereft of any academic worth, for literary theories are not used to guide a reader in developing well-informed arguments. We dismiss informal analysis of a story or a poem, especially if it’s made by people unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty details of literary criticism, as being purely misguided opinions, which are basically subjective and disorganized.
However, when we carefully scrutinize people’s comments and expressed opinions related to literary works, they are actually, but perhaps unknowingly, toeing the line of the established literary theories just the same.
For instance, if an author pens a story or a poem about “sadness,” his readers, especially those who know him personally, would readily think he has a problem. If it’s about “separation,” the presumption would be made that the creator just “called it quits” with someone. If such a write-up were posted on any social network, we would expect that it would generate a thread of comments asking what had happened or expressing sympathy in some way.
The assertions in the previous paragraph are a case of “analyzing the author through his work.” This in literary criticism is called “Psychoanalytic theory.” The theory maintains that a story or poem gives insight into the author’s mental processes. Things read in a writer’s work are believed to reveal his feelings and thoughts. Those who subscribe to this theory maintain that separating the author from his work is difficult. This means that any literary work is said to be a mirror of the author’s state of mind and emotions.
In reality, only the creator of the sad story or a separation poem knows if his emotions and thoughts are being discussed in the piece.
Other readers would say, “It is a good story (or poem) but sad.” In the foregoing remark, the focus was on the work or text itself. The author was not part of the equation.
This approach to literary criticism is called Formalism. The theory of Formalism tells us that a literary work has its own intrinsic value. The words weaved together to form meaning divorced from the author’s and reader’s state of mind and emotions. The poem or story should be scrutinized from within, not consider socio-cultural influences, authorship, or historical background. The focus of the analysis should be on the words in the literary work and not related to its author. The things considered should be the story’s or poem’s structural elements, including linguistic devices, literary devices, style, imagery, tone, and genre.
I have essays, stories, and poems posted on Facebook (and other socials), eliciting varied comments from friends and random netizens. Such comments include “That’s what you call irony!” and “Enchanting words woven together to almost perfection to which every poet can relate.” These are examples of “formalistic” reactions.
A surprising comment one of my works received was, “I like green thoughts sleep furiously.” This is about CHOMSKY’s Syntactic Structure. Obviously, the one who commented has a solid background in linguistics. Such goes beyond “Formalism” but touches the outskirts of “Structuralism.” But a reader who has a limited background (or none at all) in literature, much less literary criticism, will find it difficult to use these lenses (“Formalism” and “Structuralism”) when critiquing a literary work. Rare are the informal criticisms that focus on a poem or story’s linguistic and literary structures.
Normally, readers’ reactions to informal criticism would be based on their schema (prior knowledge) activated as they interact with the writer’s words. Each person has a wealth of knowledge and experiences that control their thoughts and decisions. It can also be assumed that the schema enables a reader to give the text its meaning or the author’s own meaning.
There’s also a theory that holds that readers are the ones who give meaning to the literary work. The body of words the author has created is meaningless until the readers read and interpret it. This theory is called the Reader-Response theory.
The proponents of this theory contend that both poems and stories are not considered finished until they’re read and interpreted. And the meaning of the literary piece is what the reader brings to it. This means that a reader interprets literary works as his schema dictates.
If the reader has it, the role of a background theory or philosophy is to moderate his interpretation. But even without a background in literary criticism, whatever a reader says about a literary work will always have philosophical underpinnings that may be connected to a literary theory.
Ultimately, how to react to a literary work is always a matter of choice (and a matter of whim) for the reader. The reader can be any of the following: psychoanalytic, judging the author through his work; formalist, accepting that words put together have a meaning divorced from the author and the environment; or a subjective reader, giving the work his personal meaning.
Furthermore, a reader can be a Feminist or a Marxist in his informal criticism. A reader with a strong grounding in literature and linguistics may opt to be a Structuralist. There are also other hats in literary theory that can be worn if one wishes to. But even if readers may not be bridled by any theory when responding to a literary work, it doesn’t matter, for literary criticism is more of a natural human response to literature than an intellectual undertaking.
As it has always been, readers respond naturally to literary works and express opinions evoked by their knowledge and experiences, sometimes informed by their biases and prejudices. Objectively or subjectively crafted, their opinions are their own. However, readers should never cross the line of propriety and decency when crafting their criticism.
Professionalism Among Teachers
The complexities involving the teaching profession and the importance of the role of teachers in the holistic development of learners require strict adherence to the tenets of professionalism. There are expectations that teachers need to meet, and there are qualities that they are expected to possess.
All the qualities teachers ought to have and what is expected of them can be summed up in one concept – “teacher professionalism.”
“Teacher professionalism” is an idea that can be defined differently based on multiple perspectives, and its merits are scrutinized according to various arguments. It is considered a broad concept consisting of several dimensions. However, for delimitation purposes, this article’s discussion on the subject is anchored only on the definitions of “professionalism” given in the next two (2) paragraphs.
Evans pointed out that “professionalism means different things to different people.”1 The Oxford dictionary defines the term as “the competence or skills expected of a professional.”2 It is the level of excellence or competence that professionals should manifest in their chosen fields of specialization.
Tichenor3 explains that professionalism is the expected behavior of individuals in a specific occupation. Professionals need to conduct themselves in accordance with set standards.
Boyt, Lusch, and Naylor4 combined the views about professionalism when they describe it as a multi-dimensional structure consisting of one’s attitudes and behaviors towards his/her job and achieving high standards. Similarly, Hargreaves5 defines professionalism as the conduct, demeanor, and standards that guide the work of professionals.
The terms associated with professionalism, as seen from the definitions and explanations given, are as follows: competence, skills, behaviors, conduct, demeanor, and standards. Competence and skills are synonymous with behaviors, conduct, and demeanor. Standards refer to the quality or accepted norms for competence and behaviors.
Skills are not the only components that make up a teacher’s competence. Knowledge is, of course, an integral part of it.
However, skills and knowledge are very broad attributions to a teacher’s competence. What specifically are the skills and knowledge that would make a teacher competent?
As Baggini puts it, “To be a professional or a professor was to profess in some skill or field of knowledge.”6 It’s a given that teachers should have knowledge of the subject matter or expertise in a particular skill. Teachers are expected to know not a little but much about what they are teaching.
What adds challenge to being a teacher is the ability to dig (whenever applicable) into the scientific, philosophical, legal, sociological, and psychological foundations of what is being taught. It is important that teachers can relate whatever they are discussing to other fields. Such an ability would enable teachers to enrich the discussion.
But teaching and learning are complex processes that involve a lot more… not just knowing what to teach and being able to connect a topic to other disciplines. The corresponding skills that enable teachers to effectively teach what they know and make the students learn would make them truly competent. Such skills are acquired through training in pedagogy.
Pedagogy is commonly defined as “the art, science, or profession of teaching.” Pedagogy informs teaching strategies, teacher actions, and teacher judgments and decisions by considering theories of learning, understandings of students and their needs, and the backgrounds and interests of individual students.7
Pedagogy, in a nutshell, tells how best to teach and how best the students learn.
Knowledge and expertise in a field would not make one a teacher. Pedagogical skills are needed. Competent teachers SHOULD know the subject matter and how to set learning objectives, motivate students, design learning activities, facilitate learning, construct assessment, and assess learning.’
In addition, another skill through which the competence of 21st-century teachers is gauged is how extensively and effectively they apply technology (computer) to teaching and learning.
Aside from competence, the other dimension of a teacher’s professionalism this article explores is behavior.
Teachers are aware that they should behave according to the ethical standards set for the teaching profession. They are expected to speak, act, and dress accordingly. Barber8 pointed this out when he identifies as one of the main characteristics of professional behavior a “high degree of self-control of behavior through codes of ethics.”
However, the behavior dimension of professionalism among teachers goes beyond proper manners and decorum.
Another characteristic of professional behavior identified by Barber is “orientation primarily to community interest rather than to individual self-interest.” It is no secret that teachers sacrifice a lot to help their students. Teachers work long hours and practice a lot of patience. As Orlin puts it, “ I see it (teaching) as an act of self-sacrifice, as a hard path undertaken for the greater good.”9
Teachers also know that they need to keep learning. They need a continuing professional development plan to better deal with the profession’s challenges. They need to keep abreast with the current trends and innovations in the field of education.
There are also general teaching behaviors that, according to a study, are the most important for effective teaching (as perceived by students). Hativa identified five (5) of them: making the lessons clear, organized, engaging /interesting, and maintaining interactions and rapport with students.10
Two (2) of the said general teaching behaviors (making the lessons clear and organized) are related to the first dimension of teacher professionalism (competence and skills). The rest are more indicative of the second dimension (behavior).
Teacher professionalism strongly implies the demands and complexities of teaching, making it harder to understand why the profession doesn’t get due recognition. Teaching is not just any profession. Not just anybody can be a teacher. Helping young people achieve holistic development and preparing them to become responsible individuals and productive members of society is a ginormous responsibility. If those young people are your children, you will not entrust that responsibility to any Tom, Dick, or Harry but to a “professional” teacher.
References:
- Evans, Linda (2008) Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56 (1). pp. 20-38.
- Definition of “professionalism” – Oxford English Dictionary
- Tichenor, M. S., Tichenor, J. M. (2005). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on professionalism. ERIC.
- Boyt, T., Lusch, R. F. ve Naylor, G. (2001). The role of professionalism in determining job satisfaction in professional services: a study of marketing researchers, Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 321-330
- Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6 (2),151-182.
- Baggini, J. (2005). What does professionalism mean for teachers today? Education Review, 18 (2), 5-11.
- Shulman, Lee (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform”(PDF). Harvard Educational Review. 15(2): 4–14. Retrieved 12 June 2017.
- Barber, B. (1965). Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions. In K. S. Lynn (Edt.), The Professions in America (pp. 669-688). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Orlin, Ben “Teaching As Self Sacrifice.” Match With Bad Drawing. WordPress, March 10, 2014. Web. 19 July, 2017.
- Hativa, N. (2014). A practical approach to designing, operating, and reporting, 2nd, Tel Aviv: Oron Publications.
The Jokers In The Academe
(A Personal Essay)
I have been a teacher since Seoul hosted the Summer Olympics. It has been a long journey filled with ups and downs, joys and sorrows. I don’t regret anything I have undergone as a teacher, and I could say that I triumphed over all the difficulties and pains because I wouldn’t have lasted this long in the academe if not.
I worked in 8 schools in the Philippines, 6 as a full-timer and 2 as a part-timer. Here in South Korea, where I teach now, is my second university. I stayed a year in the first one, and now I’m on my way to completing my tenth year, where I transferred.
Return to the previous paragraph and count the academic institutions I worked in.
How many?
That’s two short of a dozen.
In those schools, I met different kinds of students, administrators, and – teachers… the best and the worst.
This essay deals with teachers I call “jokers in the academe.” But just to be clear – the majority of those I worked with are professionals who love and respect the profession of teaching. It was a pleasure working with them. The jokers I am referring to are the few rotten ones in a crate of apples.
My experience with the “jokers” taught me to have a great deal of patience. There were times when I lost that patience and locked horns with them. During my first few years here in South Korea, I tried to keep quiet for a couple of years, just watching these recipients of the fallacy that “if you’re good at English, you can be a teacher of English.” Yes, you need to be patient when encountering jokers among your colleagues. They aren’t funny at all. They are annoying. But in one meeting, my thread of patience snapped. I said enough is enough. I started telling colleagues who were unnecessarily noisy to shut up.
I am not saying I am a perfect teacher; far from it. I still have lots to improve. At least I have been trying my best to conform to the evolving professional standards for teachers.
Most importantly, I am not a joker. I would never be. As an expat teacher, I feel like being appraised not only as a teacher but as a citizen of my country. I don’t like to be the reason people ask – “Is this the kind of teacher Teacher Education Institutions in the Philippines produce?”
In this personal essay, I would play BATMAN and let me unmask the “JOKER.”
Who might these jokers be?
One of those that I classify as jokers is the “super dependents.”The “super dependents” are teachers who will not solve their problems. They expect their colleagues to do that for them. They are the ones who hate exerting extra effort to find a solution to whatever bugs them. Their sense of entitlement is so strong that they think it is the duty of people around them to help them escape a difficult situation.
What these jokers consider as problems are not problems to begin with.
For example – the school requires teachers to apply new technology in the classroom. That, for them, is a contentious issue. They would try to dip their hands deep into their bag of reasons to justify their non-compliance.
You would hear the lamest excuses like “My training as an educator did not include applying those technologies.”
Really!?
Another excuse, lame also, is “It’s labor-intensive.”
They want things to be given to them on a silver platter. They would never go the extra mile.
They are like square pegs in round holes. No explanation would make them buy the idea that being a 21st-century teacher teaching 21st-century learners would require learning 21st-century skills.
These jokers don’t understand that part of their responsibility as educators – if they really consider themselves educators – is to retool and retrain, if necessary, to cope with the demands of what has become a technology-driven pedagogy used by 21st-century teachers.
They should not subscribe to the idea that “old dogs can’t learn new tricks” because they are not dogs. They’re human beings who are supposed to be rational.
Are they?
Anyway, let’s talk about dogs.
They bark, right?
Some of the jokers in the academe are like dogs. They bark a lot.
I call them the “barkers.”
These jokers bark about their disagreement with school policies and what they perceive as incompetence among the “people upstairs.” They are the eternal fault-finders who see nothing but negative in the organization. They live to seek the “tiny black in an ocean of white.” For them, nothing is right. Everything is wrong.
They complain day and night, but not when they go to the ATM during payday.
Do they deserve their pay? Are they doing their job? Only they and their students could tell.
Yes, there are times when they have valid reasons to disagree. But what is frustrating is that they bark up the wrong tree. They don’t address their concerns to the right people at the right place and time. They grandstand during meetings wasting their colleagues’ precious time. They force them to listen to their misguided eloquence. Sometimes they also write long unsolicited e-mails where they express their grievances. They don’t understand that not everybody in the organization shares their opinion about the policies and their school administrators.
The funny thing is these jokers bark, but they don’t bite.
They do nothing about their complaints except bark about them. But when the administrators responsible for implementing the policies they disagree with are present in meetings, they are very quiet, silent in one corner of the room, wagging their tails.
These jokers curse the school and their administrators at every opportunity they have. They tell everybody that the school where they are is the worst place to be. Yet at the end of the school year, they (let me use these words again) wag their tails as they sign their names on the dotted lines for a contract extension.
See… they whine and whing at every opportunity about policies, imperfections of the organization, and what have you. Still, the following school year, I saw them again, and as usual, whining and whinging.
They say in broad daylight, “This organization sucks.” But they remain. Why? Is it because they have no other place to go? That’s just a guess. Another guess… they won’t be able to find another university that pays as much as where we are working now.
I may be wrong.
I call the next category of jokers “Don Quixotes.”
Don Quixote, in case you’ve forgotten (or have not heard or read about him), is a fictional character introduced to the world by the Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes through his epic novel, “The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha.”
The “Don Quixotes” are the ones who do not understand that when changes are implemented and policies get tweaked by employers, the employees should not take it personally. Changes in the workplace happen when they are due. It is something inevitable. It is frustrating when the jokers cannot or refuse to understand if the management wants to exercise their prerogatives; whether the people downstairs want it or not, they could and would.
When in one meeting, a colleague stood and gave a long speech against a policy our university was about to implement, I felt obliged to cordially beg him to stop his litany because whatever he was saying then would all be in vain. Additionally, I told him that he was just unnecessarily prolonging the meeting and wasting my time and that of those uninterested in what he was saying. I also advised him that if he wanted, he should set an appointment with the university officials and tell them about his protestations… or sue the university. That Don Quixote did not realize they could not force anybody to join their cause, especially those who consider changes necessary and inevitable. What they were trying to do at that time was force everybody in the room (and sometimes in group chats) to listen to (and read) their whinges and whines.
Expat teachers who think they could dissuade their employers who hired them from making the changes the former wants to implement are as delusional as Don Quixote. We could possibly do it in our own countries. But in a country where we are foreigners and work on a contractual basis, it’s a QUIXOTIC endeavor. It’s like “fighting the windmills.”
These “Don Quixotes” thought that their braggadocio was admirable. It is not. It’s irritating. What makes it more irritating is, just like the jokers called “barkers,” they kept accepting the extension of contracts the university offered them. They keep serving the institution whose policies they don’t find acceptable. Why? Can you guess? Why can’t they just keep quiet, do their work, and enjoy the “dough.”
The last category of jokers in my list are those who applied (and luckily got hired) as teachers, even if they are not “really” qualified and trained for the profession.
They are the ones I call the “pretenders.”
Yeah, they pretend to be teachers.
These jokers applied as teachers because there were no other jobs available, especially in the countries where they come from. Given their qualifications and capabilities, I doubt it very much if they will get hired as teachers in their own countries. They are very fortunate (and the students are unfortunate) that they hurdled interviews in Asian countries and were recommended for hiring. That’s why I do not like the “no teaching demo” approach to hiring teacher applicants.
Among these jokers are English teachers who thought they could be English teachers because they can speak the language. In one of my essays, I emphasized that it doesn’t mean that when you know something, you can already teach it. “If you know it, you can teach it” is a fallacy.
Knowing a subject matter is different from knowing how to teach it. The former is only one of the many requirements for the latter.
“Real teachers,” those not pretending to be one, know what it takes to be a teacher. Teaching is not parroting the contents of the book. It’s not delivering a monologue in front of the students.
Teachers must choose the best strategy to use in the class from various available strategies. They have to set objectives and test if those objectives are met. They need to differentiate the levels of their students and identify the corresponding techniques and activities suitable for those levels.
“Real teachers” know what philosophy would inform whatever they do and say in the class. They know which sociological, psychological, historical, and legal foundations they would base all their decisions on as teachers.
It means that a teacher’s job is so complicated that “not just anybody” should be allowed to teach. And when a school commits the mistake of hiring applicants who are not trained to be teachers, expect them to become the jokers in the academe.
In the academe, most of those who complain a lot – those who create a lot of trouble – are the ones who are not really trained to become teachers. These jokers are the ones who seemed to be lost in the wilderness, not knowing what to do and how to do things in the academe. They are the ones who would blame others when they encounter difficulties and can’t figure out how to deal with them.
The common trait among these jokers is that they want everything given to them on a silver platter. You need to explain to them in detail (and repetitively) how to perform tasks that teachers are supposedly trained to do. Sometimes they would even require their colleagues to do things for them. They would not bother learning how to do it.
Beware of the jokers in the academe. They’re not funny.
These jokers could be many or but a few in schools everywhere.
A voice within kept telling me not to mind the jokers in the academe. I did so, but not for long. It became too difficult for me to hold my horses when I heard the “non-performing” barkers whine and whing so persistently. It’s so difficult to just turn a blind eye (and a deaf ear) to what they are doing (and saying) all the time. I had to say my piece – through this personal essay.
What’s dangerous is that they are contagious. They contaminate the working environment. They have the ability to flip the organizational climate from positive to negative.
So, beware of the jokers. Avoid them like a plague.
These crying babies are not cute. Don’t babysit them.
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 