Academic spaces should nurture thinking. Academic spaces should encourage thinking. Academic spaces should be hubs of curiosity. Academic spaces should be places where one learns how to think outside of the box. Academic spaces should put minds on fire. Academic spaces should ignite an urge of curiosity among their attendees.
All these “shoulds” reflect the essence of academic spaces, and can only be actualized if academic spaces promote “how to think” instead of “what to think.” The question worth exploring is where our academic spaces stand in the light of all these “shoulds.”
I have been teaching International Relations for the last four years to undergraduate students at various universities in Lahore. I meet students in classes daily, and I love interacting with students in classes. I see a pandemic in our academic spaces. This pandemic is present in the shape of the promotion of “what to think” or “understanding of what” only, in simple words. In schools, colleges, and even in universities, if not everywhere but in the majority of institutions, learning is only confined to “what to think.” What is usually taught in various courses revolves around what is this and what is that. What is usually considered as a criterion for measuring students’ intellect is how good they are at memorizing many “whats” of something because in exams usually understandings of these “whats” are verified in various questions.
Whatever the case, whether it’s the entire academic system that is promoting only “what to think” or it’s the podium that is promoting understanding of “whats” among students consciously or unconsciously, this pandemic is present in our academic spaces, and needs a cure. In this digital age in which there is no scarcity of information, teaching “whats” in academic spaces and confining whole learning to “whats” is lowering the bar too much for academic spaces. The essence of any academic space in the present age lies in the promotion of how to think, not what to think only
This “what to think” learning is, I think, predominantly coming from Natural Sciences for which there is a huge fascination among students in schools and colleges all because of two coveted professions, that are medicine and engineering, which the majority of students want to pursue, and this level of learning, which is focused on “what, can be a good fit for Natural Sciences, but it’s suicidal for social sciences if it’s confined only to this level. In social sciences, a lot is expected from students in learning about social reality, covering what, when, where, why, and how.
In learning Natural Sciences, I am not saying that there are no “whys” or “hows” or there is no nuanced approach towards learning but the reality in Natural Sciences is usually fixed and you can study things objectively while in Social Sciences it’s nothing like this. Reality is not objective in social sciences and to make a better sense of reality you need to be very creative, knowing many whys and hows. You cannot make a better sense of social reality with a pure Natural Sciences lens.
Unfortunately, a majority of the students opting for social sciences degrees in their undergraduate studies programmes at universities in Pakistan bring with them this “what to think” mentality either because of their previous backgrounds in Natural Sciences or because of their overall experiences with learning in this way. Knowing “what” is not a bad thing and can be a good start to advanced learning, but confining the whole of learning to “what” is problematic. Because in academic spaces, especially at schools and colleges, students are usually not exposed to “whys” and “hows” in a nuanced way and their understanding of the world is predominantly based upon many “whats”; that’s why their critical thinking skills are below par.
Not all the time. It’s the exposure to Natural Sciences at schools and colleges that confine students’ learning only to “what to think” at universities in social sciences. At times, it’s the podium in classes that promote “what to think” among students. I have heard students how at times teachers push them to write in exams exactly what has been shared with them in classes, to get good grades. When a podium only promotes “what to think”, especially in social sciences, it may be because the teacher wants everything in control or maybe unconsciously he or she is doing it without being aware of its downsides. However, whatever the case is, by confining learning to “whats”, he or she is compromising on the essence of an academic space that is inspiring thinking among students.
I usually teach freshly enrolled students in a university. I attest to this that this promotion of “what to think” learning is crippling students’ creativity and motivation towards learning. I see how pressurized they feel when they approach exams. I see how less confident they seem when they express themselves in classes. In their exam papers, they rarely speak from their minds or creatively develop their answers. Even when they write something from their minds, they feel less confident about it. I see how at times they note down every word delivered to them from the podium, and when you ask them to share the concept in their own words; they answer you in the same words that you used for explaining that point and they hardly put things in their own words.
I think it’s all because we have turned our whole academic system into a kind of box in which we ask our students to fit. To fit within that box, we as teachers implicitly or explicitly give these messages to students that they have to catch up with all the “whats” that have been shared with them. Perhaps, it’s because the people who are occupying the podium- teachers- have also been trained in this way in this system and unconsciously they are promoting this, or maybe it’s a strategy to keep things under control because allowing “whys” can make the present “whats” questionable and can push the podium out of its comfort zone. Confining learning only to understanding “what” feels suffocating in social sciences, and it should not surprise us the faculty when we find students reluctant to participate in classes.
Whatever the case, whether it’s the entire academic system that is promoting only “what to think” or it’s the podium that is promoting understanding of “whats” among students consciously or unconsciously, this pandemic is present in our academic spaces, and needs a cure. In this digital age in which there is no scarcity of information, teaching “whats” in academic spaces and confining whole learning to “whats” is lowering the bar too much for academic spaces. The essence of any academic space in the present age lies in the promotion of how to think, not what to think only.
