Recently, a Raffles Junior College （RJC） student used his Personal Digital Assistant （PDA） to film a female teacher berating and tearing in two the work of a classmate.
The public discussion that the incident sparked off was confined initially to the virtual community in which the video clip was posted. However, when it came to the media's attention, it quickly became a major talking point in the education circles.
The reactions so far suggest that the focus on the debate has been on the apportion of blame.
Teachers who are anxious to defend their professional integrity have closed ranks and put the blame squarely on the student who recorded the incident.
They have also cited intrusion of privacy as the reason for their request to the Ministry of Education （MOE） to ban PDAs in schools.
On the other hand, some parents, students and members of the public have taken a different position. They feel that the teacher is also at fault and should face disciplinary action.
Caught up in the war of words between both sides, people are no longer interested in the “truth” of the matter which seems to have become immaterial.
It was left to newspaper commentaries to identify the issue at the heart of the controversy, by highlighting the deep underlying problems in our education system.
For those responsible for educating the young especially, this PDA episode brings home the message that “times have changed”- a reality that must have been felt even more acutely by the female teacher when reflecting on this unpleasant experience.
Different times call for different professional approaches in education. The ability to understand the kind of students they are teaching has always been the hallmark of successful teachers.
Mitigating factors notwithstanding, the outburst by the teacher shows an undeniable lack of professionalism on her part. Nothing can exonerate her from that.
Besides, even for recalcitrant students, there are provisions under the current system to deal with them. Irrational acts of verbal abuse or even aggression are totally unnecesary.
From a different perspective, the incident illustrates an issue with which we should all be familiar： the dilemma that we sometimes find ourselves in as a result of new technology.
True, cutting-edge technology is developing by leaps and bounds and has made life much more comfortable and convenient for us. But in the context of this episode, the PDA, as a symbol of technological innovation, has also fundamentally changed the nature of interaction between the teacher and students in the classroom.
From the early days of uni-directional instructions from teachers, we have reached a stage which stresses interactive learning. The use of PDAs has undermined the traditional relationship in which teachers have authority over students within the classroom.
Learning is now interactive and so is supervision. It is evident that the relationship between the “supervisor” and the “supervisees” can be completely reversed when the teacher is caught offguard.
This new “supervisory mechanism” also means that the possibility of internally resolving issues within a school may be reduced. An isolated incident can easily become a matter of public interest and thus, susceptible to media scrutiny.
The question of course is whether the media is always the best platform to discuss educational issues.
As a profession in its own right, why has the response from the education circles been so homogeneous？ The MOE and RJC also hold identical position on the matter. Where then is the spirit of self-discipline and reflection and how can the public be expected to continue to have confidence in the teaching profession？
An opinion that has been circulating on the Net is that the filming incident has revealed an apparent inadequacy in our education institutions.
When students are unhappy with any unreasonable conduct of teachers, they should first go to the principal. But it is obvious that we have yet to create an atmosphere in our schools in which students could voice their concerns without the fear of punishment. Nor have we provided a channel for communications between students and the school authorities on the basis of equality.
The widespread adoption of technology has, more often than not, nurtured a form of interventionist mentality in us that is devoid of context. It has also created a tendency where technology is frequently used to dispense with human interaction.
In this particular case, in spite of the “courageous” behaviour by the student to capture the teacher's misconduct on video, it is, unfortunately, not the most enlightened way of solving problems. The student who has no intention of getting involved personally has probably failed to take into consideration the power of the electronic media and has now found himself right at the centre of the controversy.
。The writer is a reporter of Lianhe Zaobao.
近,一名萊佛士初級學院的女教師厲聲責罵學生并當眾撕毀其作業(yè)簿的情景,被旁觀的另一名同班學生以PDA（個人數(shù)碼助理）錄下實況,進而在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上公開。這事件原本只在虛擬社群里被廣泛討論,之后卻得到媒體的關注,使它迅速成為教育界的熱門話題。
從這次事件引起的反應看來,多數(shù)的相關議論依舊停留在問責的層次。欲極力維護專業(yè)尊嚴的教師群體,以隱私權遭到侵犯為由,同仇敵愾地聲討錄像學生的不是,同時也借此呼吁教育部禁止學生在校園使用PDA.而以家長、學生乃至公眾所形成的另一方,則主張涉及事件的教師,也有承擔責任的必要,必須得到紀律處分。
在一片相互口誅筆伐的眾聲喧嘩中,對于靠近所謂的“真相”,已經(jīng)沒有太多人感到興趣,水落石出也變得毫不重要了。值得慶幸的是,報章的評論正好將問題的癥結(jié)點出,并說明了這次事件背后,存在于教育界的深層隱患。
經(jīng)過這次PDA事件以后,也許各方,特別是教育工作者,對“時代不同了”這個說法的認知,會有更深刻的體會。此外,對于身為事件主角之一的那名女教師,這次的經(jīng)驗肯定更是銘心刻骨。不同的時代,對教師勢必有截然不同的專業(yè)要求,認清教學對象,一直是成功教師的重要品質(zhì)。
事實上,該教師的情緒失控,不管如何申辯,確實是代表了一種專業(yè)操守上的缺位,任何解釋都難辭其咎。況且,在現(xiàn)行的體制下,自然也有應付即使是冥頑不靈的學子,實在無需訴諸謾罵和行為暴力等非理性行為。
換個角度來談,這次事態(tài)的發(fā)展,剛好也從不同的側(cè)面,體現(xiàn)一個大家如今應該非常熟悉的主題：科技使用的雙面后果或兩難。瞬息萬變以及日新月異的尖端科技,的確能夠帶來生活上的無盡方便。然而,放置在這次事件的背景中,象征科技進步的PDA,卻意味著師生在課室里的互動關系,從此徹變。
從早期單向指導的教育理念,一路走來,迄今強調(diào)互動學習,PDA（科技）的使用*了過往,課堂內(nèi)傳統(tǒng)師生之間的權力運作。現(xiàn)在,不只學習是互動的,連監(jiān)督也同樣是互動的。聚焦這次PDA事件,更具體地說明了,監(jiān)督與被監(jiān)督的關系,可以在教師毫無防備的情況下,隨時逆轉(zhuǎn)。
面對教育的新監(jiān)督機制,功能關系的互動化,再加上PDA科技與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)媒介的銜接,學校內(nèi)部解決問題的可能性無形中降低,從而使孤立事件能夠很輕易地成為一個允許輿論置喙的現(xiàn)代公共話題。
由此產(chǎn)生的質(zhì)疑是,公共輿論是否每次都是商榷教育課題,理想的平臺？再者,教育作為一個專業(yè)范疇,這次何以卻出現(xiàn)眾口一詞的現(xiàn)象——校方與教育部立場竟然重疊——其自律反省的精神在哪里？公眾對教育工作者的信心要從何建立？
如事后流傳于虛擬社群中的看法所表述,PDA事件毋寧揭示了教育體制中的某種不足。針對類似教師的不合理舉措,若是學生感到不滿,他應該循序地先向校方反映。這事件在很大的程度上,暴露了現(xiàn)行的教育體制尚未能夠營造一個讓學生感覺無懼受罰的氛圍,以及同校方平等溝通的渠道。
科技的普及,往往助長了人們內(nèi)心,一種抽離事件發(fā)展脈絡的介入心態(tài),也不自覺地造成我們以科技來省略人際交往過程的傾向。以這次教育界的風波為例,該名PDA的主人,盡管善意“勇”為,但捕捉老師失職的影像,畢竟不是解決問題的優(yōu)選手段。原本只想置身事外的他,大概也沒有估計,電子媒介的傳播能力,終也使他成為這次PDA事件的爭議性人物。
The public discussion that the incident sparked off was confined initially to the virtual community in which the video clip was posted. However, when it came to the media's attention, it quickly became a major talking point in the education circles.
The reactions so far suggest that the focus on the debate has been on the apportion of blame.
Teachers who are anxious to defend their professional integrity have closed ranks and put the blame squarely on the student who recorded the incident.
They have also cited intrusion of privacy as the reason for their request to the Ministry of Education （MOE） to ban PDAs in schools.
On the other hand, some parents, students and members of the public have taken a different position. They feel that the teacher is also at fault and should face disciplinary action.
Caught up in the war of words between both sides, people are no longer interested in the “truth” of the matter which seems to have become immaterial.
It was left to newspaper commentaries to identify the issue at the heart of the controversy, by highlighting the deep underlying problems in our education system.
For those responsible for educating the young especially, this PDA episode brings home the message that “times have changed”- a reality that must have been felt even more acutely by the female teacher when reflecting on this unpleasant experience.
Different times call for different professional approaches in education. The ability to understand the kind of students they are teaching has always been the hallmark of successful teachers.
Mitigating factors notwithstanding, the outburst by the teacher shows an undeniable lack of professionalism on her part. Nothing can exonerate her from that.
Besides, even for recalcitrant students, there are provisions under the current system to deal with them. Irrational acts of verbal abuse or even aggression are totally unnecesary.
From a different perspective, the incident illustrates an issue with which we should all be familiar： the dilemma that we sometimes find ourselves in as a result of new technology.
True, cutting-edge technology is developing by leaps and bounds and has made life much more comfortable and convenient for us. But in the context of this episode, the PDA, as a symbol of technological innovation, has also fundamentally changed the nature of interaction between the teacher and students in the classroom.
From the early days of uni-directional instructions from teachers, we have reached a stage which stresses interactive learning. The use of PDAs has undermined the traditional relationship in which teachers have authority over students within the classroom.
Learning is now interactive and so is supervision. It is evident that the relationship between the “supervisor” and the “supervisees” can be completely reversed when the teacher is caught offguard.
This new “supervisory mechanism” also means that the possibility of internally resolving issues within a school may be reduced. An isolated incident can easily become a matter of public interest and thus, susceptible to media scrutiny.
The question of course is whether the media is always the best platform to discuss educational issues.
As a profession in its own right, why has the response from the education circles been so homogeneous？ The MOE and RJC also hold identical position on the matter. Where then is the spirit of self-discipline and reflection and how can the public be expected to continue to have confidence in the teaching profession？
An opinion that has been circulating on the Net is that the filming incident has revealed an apparent inadequacy in our education institutions.
When students are unhappy with any unreasonable conduct of teachers, they should first go to the principal. But it is obvious that we have yet to create an atmosphere in our schools in which students could voice their concerns without the fear of punishment. Nor have we provided a channel for communications between students and the school authorities on the basis of equality.
The widespread adoption of technology has, more often than not, nurtured a form of interventionist mentality in us that is devoid of context. It has also created a tendency where technology is frequently used to dispense with human interaction.
In this particular case, in spite of the “courageous” behaviour by the student to capture the teacher's misconduct on video, it is, unfortunately, not the most enlightened way of solving problems. The student who has no intention of getting involved personally has probably failed to take into consideration the power of the electronic media and has now found himself right at the centre of the controversy.
。The writer is a reporter of Lianhe Zaobao.
近,一名萊佛士初級學院的女教師厲聲責罵學生并當眾撕毀其作業(yè)簿的情景,被旁觀的另一名同班學生以PDA（個人數(shù)碼助理）錄下實況,進而在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上公開。這事件原本只在虛擬社群里被廣泛討論,之后卻得到媒體的關注,使它迅速成為教育界的熱門話題。
從這次事件引起的反應看來,多數(shù)的相關議論依舊停留在問責的層次。欲極力維護專業(yè)尊嚴的教師群體,以隱私權遭到侵犯為由,同仇敵愾地聲討錄像學生的不是,同時也借此呼吁教育部禁止學生在校園使用PDA.而以家長、學生乃至公眾所形成的另一方,則主張涉及事件的教師,也有承擔責任的必要,必須得到紀律處分。
在一片相互口誅筆伐的眾聲喧嘩中,對于靠近所謂的“真相”,已經(jīng)沒有太多人感到興趣,水落石出也變得毫不重要了。值得慶幸的是,報章的評論正好將問題的癥結(jié)點出,并說明了這次事件背后,存在于教育界的深層隱患。
經(jīng)過這次PDA事件以后,也許各方,特別是教育工作者,對“時代不同了”這個說法的認知,會有更深刻的體會。此外,對于身為事件主角之一的那名女教師,這次的經(jīng)驗肯定更是銘心刻骨。不同的時代,對教師勢必有截然不同的專業(yè)要求,認清教學對象,一直是成功教師的重要品質(zhì)。
事實上,該教師的情緒失控,不管如何申辯,確實是代表了一種專業(yè)操守上的缺位,任何解釋都難辭其咎。況且,在現(xiàn)行的體制下,自然也有應付即使是冥頑不靈的學子,實在無需訴諸謾罵和行為暴力等非理性行為。
換個角度來談,這次事態(tài)的發(fā)展,剛好也從不同的側(cè)面,體現(xiàn)一個大家如今應該非常熟悉的主題：科技使用的雙面后果或兩難。瞬息萬變以及日新月異的尖端科技,的確能夠帶來生活上的無盡方便。然而,放置在這次事件的背景中,象征科技進步的PDA,卻意味著師生在課室里的互動關系,從此徹變。
從早期單向指導的教育理念,一路走來,迄今強調(diào)互動學習,PDA（科技）的使用*了過往,課堂內(nèi)傳統(tǒng)師生之間的權力運作。現(xiàn)在,不只學習是互動的,連監(jiān)督也同樣是互動的。聚焦這次PDA事件,更具體地說明了,監(jiān)督與被監(jiān)督的關系,可以在教師毫無防備的情況下,隨時逆轉(zhuǎn)。
面對教育的新監(jiān)督機制,功能關系的互動化,再加上PDA科技與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)媒介的銜接,學校內(nèi)部解決問題的可能性無形中降低,從而使孤立事件能夠很輕易地成為一個允許輿論置喙的現(xiàn)代公共話題。
由此產(chǎn)生的質(zhì)疑是,公共輿論是否每次都是商榷教育課題,理想的平臺？再者,教育作為一個專業(yè)范疇,這次何以卻出現(xiàn)眾口一詞的現(xiàn)象——校方與教育部立場竟然重疊——其自律反省的精神在哪里？公眾對教育工作者的信心要從何建立？
如事后流傳于虛擬社群中的看法所表述,PDA事件毋寧揭示了教育體制中的某種不足。針對類似教師的不合理舉措,若是學生感到不滿,他應該循序地先向校方反映。這事件在很大的程度上,暴露了現(xiàn)行的教育體制尚未能夠營造一個讓學生感覺無懼受罰的氛圍,以及同校方平等溝通的渠道。
科技的普及,往往助長了人們內(nèi)心,一種抽離事件發(fā)展脈絡的介入心態(tài),也不自覺地造成我們以科技來省略人際交往過程的傾向。以這次教育界的風波為例,該名PDA的主人,盡管善意“勇”為,但捕捉老師失職的影像,畢竟不是解決問題的優(yōu)選手段。原本只想置身事外的他,大概也沒有估計,電子媒介的傳播能力,終也使他成為這次PDA事件的爭議性人物。