We were all given a daunting problem to solve. The ‘problems’ were a variety of obstacles to critical teaching in Korea
The first, and perhaps most important, step in neutralizing the students’ debilitating tendency to try to find something to memorize is to recognize that the students' objective in attempting to discern what the teacher wants to hear is essentially an aspiration to gain favour. This drive for acceptance may be based on the sheer enjoyment of pleasing the teacher, or it may be an egocentric ploy to obtain an A+.
Regardless of the motivation for students’ compulsive desire to tell the teacher what they believe the teacher wants to hear (hereinafter referred to as “x”), it is something that should be encouraged, harnessed, and exploited to promote the teachers' agenda of critical teaching.
Given the foregoing, alleviating the stated problem should be a simple matter of engaging in some “learner training” (thanks Douglas !). The instructor who is determined to teach critically must force the students to understand that she/he does not want the students to continue in their mindless spewing of “x”, but rather they will be expected to actually think for themselves and express an opinion (preferably an opinion supported by reasons and based on evidence). They must understand that critical thinking and oppositional interpretations are what they teacher wants. It could possibly also help if the instructor adopted a marking scheme that rewarded the desired behaviour rather than testing their ability to memorize massive amounts of linguistic information that they are incapable of ever using.
In order to assist students with the potential trauma that will be encountered during the transition to the new “critical curriculum”, my expert also made the following practical suggestions:
1. It is imperative to create a classroom environment where everyone feels comfortable speaking and safe expressing their opinions.
2. The teacher should try to avoid criticizing a student's opinion or saying something is “wrong” (even if it appears to be poorly reasoned); instead, she/he should encourage the student to try and formulate a new opinion/interpretation. Leading students in a Socratic manner may be a useful skill when encountering an opinion that is nonsense.
3. Exams should avoid using multiple choice and should reward creative and logical answers.
4. Discussions and testing should commence with ensuring that the materials were comprehended, but they should also ask about personal opinions. Students should be questioned (by both the teacher and the other students) on their reasons and evidence for the opinions and interpretations they articulate.
5. Smaller classes where students could discuss their opinions and interpretations in groups would allow everyone to have a voice, and it may lessen the stress of speaking in front of an entire class.
6. With older and more advanced students, both the teacher and students should learn to play Devil’s Advocate. On one hand this is the practice of perpetually disagreeing with what a student says in order to force them to explain and defend their utterances. On the other, it means that the teacher should occasionally “test” the class by floating some ridiculous and unsubstantiated opinions or interpretations so that the students are prodded into disagreeing with the teacher. When students show the courage and conviction to dare to question or argue with the teacher, they should be publicly praised; the public acclaim will hopefully encourage the other students to engage in similar dissent.
