Dr. Ian Ling

2004 ANNUAL FACULTY SEMINAR AN APPRECIATION.

BY DR. IAN LING*
(*Director, E-Learning Program Faculty of Education A.U., Lecturer, Curriculum and Instruction, Educational AdministrationA.U., Chair, MS Strategy Plan Committee A.U., Senior Fellow and International Project Consultant, University ofMeibouroe, VisitingFellow, Department of Education, Victoria University of Technology, Victoria)

Up until three months ago, I thought that Au was the chemical symbol for gold. Yesterday, I found that Au was the symbol for another form of gold: the opportunity - a golden one - for me to participate in a day of orientation and discovery of the gold lode that is Assumption University. There are physical evidences of gold everywhere at the Bang Na Campus: the beautiful Madonna and Child statue in the forecourt of the Cathedral of Learning, and the magnificent Salathai opposite; in the furnishings of the formal reception room that reminded me of similar rooms at the Versailles Palace in France; in the superb ceiling murals that decorate the majestic entrance hall. But the gold that I found yesterday ran as a vein of richness existing in the hearts and minds of the presenters at yesterday's seminar.

Some of the gold was old, somewhat worn by time and a little battered; the lustre was there, however, and shone through these vicissitudes. It was cast in the form ofBrother Martin, illustrious Emeritus Principal. His was a truly golden presence; it held the respectful audience spellbound. Unconcerned with temporal matters, Brother Martin calmly, carefully, wisely spelt out the enormous moral obligation that we all have as teachers. He reminded me that we educators, ultimately, are moral agents; what we do must be good; that we have the power to be agents of goodness; that we must exercise that power. The power can operate in four key ways: in our work done; in the service that we offer to students; in the service we offer though and to our colleagues as members of a collective organisation; in our special role as mentors. The gold of moral agency, exemplified by Brother Martin, was polished and gleaming yesterday; I could sense that a considerable amount of this gold had rubbed off on the 300 or so Au colleagues in the Wiman Bangphli Room. Personally, I will carry these rubbings proudly as I endeavour to meet the moral imperatives of goodness, tolerance, democracy, justice, kindness and wisdom that glowed and flowed from the frail, calm frame of Brother Martin.

Some of the gold, more recently cast, showed aspects of a new design; here, the jeweller was Brother Bancha, President of Au, whose work was seen to be more intricate yet more massive; more complex; more detailed. The design spanned three phases: stabilisation (Au does not deteriorate with age, nor is it attacked by acids: it is a 'noble' metal); quality (in its unalloyed form, Au is soft and ductile; when alloyed
with the new demands and pressures the Education Act of BE 2542, it becomes harder and less ductile) able to improve its quality while retaining its value; excellent (Au, the noble metal, has always been seen as the most glorious, the most constant, the most permanent of metals), but nevertheless easily lost unless it is managed with careful stewardship. The golden glow of Au is to be found in the efforts of students and faculty as, together, we endeavour to value-add to an illustrious store of old gold alloyed with the new. This new amalgamation needs to shine in our engagement, our approach to globalisation, our mastery of the current global language and in our commitment to achieving excellence. A paradoxical outcome is that we must first acquire this new, excellent Au and then give it away, not carelessly, but with care and patient attention. A tragedy, of which we as the stewards of the future need to be constantly aware, would be the loss of the old gold before it is fully alloyed with the new.

A blunter, tougher, more robust nugget of Au was found in the presence ofBrother Visith S., Vice President Academic Affairs. Despite this uncast form, he is ready to allow his rich golden vien to flow within the less popular, supposedly less academic areas of survival and marketing. This flow will not stop with concern for the more glamorous golden metal; he is equally concerned with the almost equally heavy, but drabber, seemingly leaden vocational area of education and with associated practical research. While not advocating a return to the futile search for a process - using the philosopher's stone - that would turn lead (a 'base' metal) into gold, Brother Visith urged that we not ignore the less glamorous metal, lead (plumbum), for the glister of gold (aurum). Nor, he urged, should we lose sight of the moral obligations of our stewardship ofAu. We must ensure that the young adults in our care are not seduced by the false lustre of fool's gold as represented by profligate sexual encounters and by gambling. Instead, he argued, we will find it rewarding to support the spiritual side of Au. This automatically requires support of other theist, non-theist and atheist beliefs through an holistic approach to ethic and morals. This accommodation of individual contributions requires a learner-centred approach to both cognition and assessment.

While it is relatively easy to spot the nuggets and rich veins of Au, it is always more difficult to collect the alluvial Au that lies hidden beneath the overburden of hard-worked teaching. Thus, the decision to pan for alluvial gold, within the Faculty of Education fields, proved particularly successful. Dr. Absorn, in choosing to grapple with models of learning, showed that there are more ways to find gold than by happening upon it by luck. She chose to pan for Au in her particular river of interest that is primary education. In this less familiar environment she considered the learning model tools ofbehaviourisrn, cognitivism and constructivism. For me, this was a call to return to some hard-won learning models from my past in order to assist me with my new work and role here. Dr. Absorn's skilful presentation made great meaning for me, and I have begun the process of mentally adapting it for application at Au. I also resolved that some of the new Au panning procedures - particularly E-Iearning - need to be assimilated, equilibrated and accommodated with these models. But most importantly, I resolved to follow up with her on the JSF Double Pyramid of Learning and the JSF views of the teacher. There most certainly must be Au/gold in 'them thar hills'. Dr. Sangob, in discussing new paradigms for educational measurement and evaluation, also panned for elusive flecks of gold. He seeks to ensure that holistic assessment, authentic performances and fair testing methods prevent the golden flecks of student output from being overlooked in the measurement process. Improving the quality of our mining processes will ensure that our evaluation of student output remains consistent of Au standards. Forme, Dr. Sangob's presentation intersected perfectly with Dr. Absom's discussion of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences -for it has always been Gardner's fervent plea that assessments be both authentic and fair. The Au/gold standard can be maintained if these aspects are noted and attended to.

The day was a delight for me as I remade my acquaintance with Dr. Methi after the briefest of brief encounters last February; as I met a number of people who share an enthusiasm for a number of issues in which I am interested; and particularly in being able to share with Dr. Athipat much that we had in common - including our closely-related staff numbers, and our ways of remembering them! Finally, it was Dr. Absorn who linked up with Joseph Schwab's 'Commonplaces of the Curriculum': students, teachers, subjects taught and milieu/context. The golden vein that Au has tapped with its teachers suggests that it is far from being a common place!