USSH – Presentation by Ms. Nguyen Thu Giang (Lecturer in the Faculty of Journalism and Communication) at the Conference summarizing 4 years of credit-based undergraduate training, to be held on December 4th.
In this presentation, I would like to speak in three capacities: firstly, as someone who served as an assistant in drafting the credit-based curriculum for the Faculty of Journalism and Communication during the early days of its transition; secondly, as an academic advisor; and thirdly, as a lecturer. First, I must affirm that from the beginning, I have always supported the transition from the semester-based system to the credit-based system. I will clarify the reasons for this consensus below to explain my subsequent remarks. In my opinion, the transition from the semester-based system to the credit-based system is a change that, even if it fails, is unlikely to have worse consequences. I believe I was one of the few members of the university who supported this transition from the very beginning. At that time, I found that the majority did not support it because many believed the new training system would worsen the situation. In other words, it seems that everyone shared the presupposition that the semester-based system was still quite stable. I believe that's a flawed assumption. The traditional semester system needs to be changed, and it absolutely must be changed, because if we continue with the old way of learning, it's very likely that one day our school won't have enough students to teach.
The traditional semester-based system needs to be changed, and it is absolutely necessary, because if we continue with the old way of learning, it is very likely that one day our school will no longer have enough students to teach.
I'm bringing this up again to share my appreciation and recognition for the staff of the Training Department (I still remember the frowning faces of Professor Pham Gia Lam and Mr. Dinh Viet Hai whenever they discussed the credit system). They faced the crowd, persistently made mistakes, persistently learned, persistently changed, and persistently explained to achieve a rather noticeable transition, primarily in form, between the two training systems. Frankly, the fundamental and substantive transformation was not within the responsibility or capability of the Training Department. That was the long-term work of the entire university and each teaching staff member. Deep down, I believe they were the ones who bravely went into battle, even though they understood that everyone could get hurt and the possibility of failure was not low (perhaps they understood this better than anyone). However, compared to the traditional semester system, this trial at least offered a glimmer of hope for success. I must also clarify that the stagnation of the traditional academic year system does not stem from the inherent characteristics of this educational system (many places still maintain this old system, for example, Oxford), but rather from the unwillingness of anyone to confront change until forced. Therefore, like most milestones in Vietnam's development, the change here is not evolutionary but, unfortunately, revolutionary. This revolutionary nature reveals many unavoidable shortcomings of the transition process, such as a lack of preparation, clashes of interests, and, at times, impulsiveness. However, I believe that the transition has fundamentally not failed. Based on the above support, I would like to offer a few suggestions for this discussion. Although my opinions may be superficial, blunt, and sometimes pessimistic, they all stem from a desire for positive and profound change within this educational system. As an assistant in drafting the Faculty's credit-based curriculum framework, I believe that we (and I'm only referring to the case of my faculty) missed a valuable opportunity to reform our curriculum. Due to limitations in capacity and personnel, the framework drafting work I undertook was essentially nothing more than a horizontal transfer. Specifically, we: - Instead of a well-balanced combination of theory and practice within the curriculum structure, we only achieved a disjointed combination of modules, where theory was not strong enough to serve as a foundation for practice, thus significantly diminishing the significance of both. - Missed the opportunity to separate the curriculum framework into different specializations, to maximize the modularity of the modules, thereby saving teaching and learning effort for both faculty and students.
As an assistant in drafting the Faculty's credit-based curriculum framework, I believe that we (and I'm only referring to the case of my faculty) have missed a valuable opportunity to reform our own curriculum.
The reasons for this mistake are numerous and perhaps shouldn't be discussed in detail here. I only want to make one request: after several years of implementing the credit system, perhaps it's time we understood the strengths and weaknesses of the system and recognized the mistakes we've made. This is the time we need an opportunity to revise the curriculum framework to make it more suitable. As an academic advisor, I see the following urgent issues: - Firstly, it's impossible to advise students based on an illogical curriculum. For example, many students ask me: "I want to become a television reporter, so how should I design my study program?" Of course, I can only answer: "My dear, just study all the subjects in print journalism, photojournalism, radio journalism, PR, and advertising. Because our Faculty doesn't specialize, you can pursue your own aspirations, but you still have to study everything; there's no way to tailor a program specifically for you." Clearly, this answer demonstrates that the modularization of subjects has not achieved its intended purpose. Based on this answer, I believe that establishing specialized fields within the Faculty is essential and highly effective for the Faculty's development strategy. Secondly, as long as advising remains limited to technical guidance, it will be difficult to achieve effectiveness. Academic advising should first focus on strategic learning (which, as I have explained, I haven't been very effective at due to an illogical curriculum), and secondly, on learning attitudes. Current students (based on the Journalism Faculty students I know) exhibit surprisingly careless and lazy learning attitudes. This is likely due to the fragmented nature of the modular system, because during the semester-based system, I observed a more positive learning spirit. This disconnect needs to be bridged in some way (I haven't figured it out yet, but I've been doing it very spontaneously by frequently talking to them, sharing my thoughts, and encouraging them to study – something very tiring and arduous, and without any pay). We need to find a way to connect the students' learning spirit.
...After several years of implementing the credit system, perhaps it's time for us to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and recognize the mistakes we've made. This is the time we need an opportunity to revise the curriculum framework to make it more suitable.
As a lecturer, I believe that: - The students' self-learning abilities are extremely poor due to the overly dogmatic theoretical system and research methods we provide them (in the case of the Journalism department). It should be called theory, not just theory. Therefore, the knowledge system they acquire is a closed one, incapable of openness and self-reflection on new things. It also restricts their need to ask questions and to critically analyze. This, again, stems from an illogical curriculum. It was present in the traditional semester system, but it becomes very apparent in the credit-based system. - Our learning resources are inadequate. Students lack a sufficiently large library, and the library itself contains very few significant books. I would like to point out that the learning materials provided by teachers are completely different from those available through the library system, because only those available through the library system make reading compulsory and essential for the learning process. The fact that teachers are the sole providers of learning materials makes them authoritarian and one-sided, as if they were the only source of knowledge. This clearly limits students' ability to take ownership of their learning process and stifles their critical thinking and inquiry skills (because teachers impose their control over the source of books). These are my contributions based on several years of experience working with this training system. There are countless other issues I still have in mind, but considering the complexities our school is facing in this transformation, I believe these basic points are sufficient for now. Thank you sincerely.
