On Teaching
Teaching is important. It is the mechanism by which students are educated and new knowledge is transferred back to the society. It is a way for faculty to test out new research ideas and concepts and disseminate the results of already conducted research, thus evaluating its application. It is also a way for students to signal their abilities in an increasingly competitive job market, so observable quality is critical.
Having researched and taught at several of the world’s arguably best universities, and in the process won four teaching awards and recognised as country champion on teaching excellence by Oxford’s education department, I find that university teachings typically fall worryingly short in two key areas.
The first shortfall is that teaching content largely has become standardised. Content in the form of lecture slides, handouts and readings are more or less identical regardless of institution or program. This makes costly choices on moving (perhaps even abroad), paying hefty fees etc. hard to justify. After all, why should a student attend a prestigious yet costly university when education at any institution, or indeed free online material, is good enough? Even freely available material, ranging from the basic (eg Wiki) to advanced yet cheaper alternatives such as online MOOC and SPOC courses are surprisingly similar to university classes in terms of content covered and skills taught. Distance learning itself has its merits, as the latest global pandemic shows, but with limited opportunity to network and socialise among peers, class content becomes even more important differentiator.
What is needed to counter such class standardization is a water cooler approach, an expression from the TV era, where successful shows were those people talk about by the office water cooler. It means that in discussing parameters, assumptions and applications, students understanding raises beyond those gained from standardised classes. This provides them with a real competitive edge.
The second shortfall is found in the class content itself. The key to teaching excellence is to have a combination of criticality and relevance. However, in the typical teaching material concepts are repeated without much critical reflection, and details on tools and techniques and their applications often lack altogether. For instance, Porter’s forces or digital supply chains may be covered, but under what conditions the concepts apply or what tools and methods are used to actually apply them in practice are not really explored. Content typically stops at mere uncritical descriptions, leaving the enrolled students without obtaining neither real nor applicable knowledge.
To counter such simplified class content, a rowing term is useful - up one, down one - recognisable from crews Cam to Charles and all in-between. The former means that concepts are discussed critically to expose their assumptions and boundaries, thereby giving students a deeper understanding beyond mere descriptions. The latter explores operationalised issues, such as tools and their use, thereby equipping students with skills actually needed.
For students considering choosing electives or required courses to actually attend, there are two operationalized key indicators to look for:
· For expertise, on each lecture the lecturer’s own and relevant research should be incorporated in the presentation of concepts. For each lecture may seem as a bar set too high, but it is absolutely necessary to ensure that the lecturer actually has the deeper understanding needed for differentiated classes.
· For relevance, each lecture should have recent (<1 year) examples from research and real world cases. Guest talks from practitioners should be used to explore current tools and techniques used when actually applying concepts.
These are necessary steps to ensure classes raise the student capabilities beyond the generic and create true value. A tall order indeed, but needed for students to start sharpen that competitive edge.
