榴莲视频

New initiative puts focus on teaching and collaboration in China

<榴莲视频 class="standfirst">Project 101 based around classroom observations and development of home-grown educational resources
九月 11, 2023
Chinese students throwing other students in air
Source: Alamy

China is expanding an?excellence initiative that puts the focus on?teaching quality and university collaboration rather than research and institutional competition.

In Project?101, universities form consortia to?conduct classroom observations, collate resources, build course systems and create or?upgrade textbooks – often with a?focus on?home-grown curricula rather than Western standards.

In an initial pilot, 33 institutions – including Peking, Tsinghua and Beihang universities – were involved in partnerships to improve teaching standards in computer science courses. During the project’s first year, more than 400 class evaluations were completed, with academics from one provider often reviewing practices at a rival institution.

China’s Ministry of Education has said it now plans to roll the initiative out to cover other subjects, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, biological sciences, basic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, economics and philosophy.

The intention is to organise each discipline into separate knowledge clusters. These will then inform and upgrade teaching, textbooks and course practices, which are to be promoted to universities across the country.

The blueprint for the project was drafted after an initial assessment of teaching on 40 leading computer science courses was conducted by an expert committee, including John Hopcroft, emeritus professor of computer science at Cornell University.

“The idea is having faculty sit in on lectures and discussing how students interacted with what their teachers taught,” said Professor Hopcroft, a winner of the Turing Award, regarded as the “Nobel Prize of computing”.

“The assumption is that the resulting discussion will lead to improved teaching.”

The initiative has a significantly different focus from China’s established excellence initiative, the Double First Class programme, which was launched in 2015 and now supports about 150 universities, which receive additional funding to improve their performance, mainly in research and international rankings. Earlier programmes, the “211” and “985” projects of the 1990s, had a similar eye on international competitiveness.

However, academics have warned that the excellence initiatives have deepened the funding gap between universities in the country’s affluent east and those in the less privileged “middle” and west, and have led to elite institutions poaching talented academics from less well-resourced campuses.

There have also been allegations of administrators resorting to unethical practices such as hiring “shadow academics” to boost citation numbers, which excellence initiatives used to help make funding decisions.

There is no suggestion that the overarching goal of driving up China’s scientific performance is being abandoned, and the amount of funding attached to Project?101 is significantly less than that associated with the research-focused initiatives.

But it comes as the country’s rulers nudge universities towards building a?higher education system with “Chinese characteristics”, rather than one based on Western standards.

Reflecting on the expert committee’s initial assessment, Professor Hopcroft said: “At that time, university presidents were focused on improving their international ranking. But these rankings are based on research funding and the number and quality of research publications.

“We said: discard these metrics and focus instead on the quality of undergraduate lecturing.”

Yang Rui, a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong, said it was right to pay greater attention to teaching quality.

“The project has not attracted much attention even within China’s higher education circle,” he said. “However, it is by design in the right direction; it stresses institutional collaboration rather than competition.

“The positive side is to have a national perspective and utilise national resources to develop something first and then promote it nationwide.”

karen.liu@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (3)
A welcome initiative that might finally show a country playing to its own cultural strengths rather than just adopting untested western fashions in education.
A welcome initiative that might finally show a country playing to its own cultural strengths rather than just adopting untested western fashions in education.
More than a decade back Peking University Press translated and published my edited collection of essays by experienced Oxford dons on ‘The Oxford Tutorial’ (English version now at Amazon in a 2019 edition; also in a Korean translation). The pedagogy of TOT is all about giving students the chance to engage in the academic discourse and hence develop their critical-thinking skills; the very opposite of the rote-learning that prevails in some HE systems as in K12 systems. It is a costly labour-intensive teaching arrangement (1:2 hour-long tutorials) but our Centre for Tutorial Teaching Ltd, along with its forthcoming spin-off the Centre for Tutorial Education (Oxford) Ltd, seeks to bring the pedagogy to less well-resourced educational HE environments and down into the K12 age-range.