 |
|
News |Bio |Writing |Teaching | Readings | Workshops | Photo Travelogue | Favorite Quotes | Links J e f f F e a r n s i d e
My Writing |
*For tables 1.1-2.2, respondents could list more than one answer. **All percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number. For tables 3.1-6, they will not necessarily add up exactly to 100. Table 1.2
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
What can we extrapolate from these results? Obviously, poor economic conditions in Kazakhstan directly result in at least three of its listed educational weaknesses—bribery/corruption, lack of material resources, and low teacher pay—while stable economic conditions in America account for at least two of its listed educational strengths—good material resources and lack of bribery/corruption. But going beyond the obvious, what cultural differences are suggested in these results? And how will they influence Kazakhstan as it seeks to imitate the successes and avoid the weaknesses of the American system? For example, why is America known for its opportunities for independent work, the choice it allows students? I suggest that the culture in America allows its educational system to flourish in a particular way—that is, its educational system is to some degree culture-specific. To understand this better, let us first look at a more direct comparison between the two systems. Kazakhstani versus American higher education Following are the current typical educational pictures in both countries. These pictures are not meant to be comprehensive but will suffice to present a significant contrast relevant to this discussion. Obviously, there is great variation between HEIs. In Kazakhstan, a small number have truly implemented an American-style system (the Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research is perhaps the most well-known example). However, the majority of the rest to varying degrees reflect the following characteristics:
Let us now compare that picture to the typical one in America:
The credit system Let us next examine the first difference between the American and Kazakhstani higher education systems listed above, the most fundamental one, even with the educational transition in Kazakhstan currently underway: how students choose the classes that will lead to degrees in their fields of specialty. Both in the United States and now here, this system is called a credit system. Yet there is a fundamental misunderstanding in Kazakhstan of what a credit system is—in particular, an American-style credit system. Correcting this misunderstanding is essential to making the changes work here. Credits at their most basic level are simply units of measurement for determining whether students have completed the necessary amount of coursework for their degrees. Regardless of what this measurement is called, it is not fundamentally different from the system of measurement used up until recently in Kazakhstan. For example, a course in America that meets for one academic hour twice a week is said to be worth two credits; that is, a credit equals one academic hour per week. This is no different than an academic “pair” here which meets once a week and is said to be worth two academic hours. The only difference lies in the terms “credit” and “hour.” Both classes still meet for the same amount of time each week. Simply changing to one-hour/one-credit classes, as many HEIs here have done, is cosmetic; it is just another way to measure hours. So what, then, makes a credit system? I believe the term is misleading. A much better term would be academic option system. At its heart is the idea that a student can choose his or her own curriculum—within limited and clearly explicit conditions. This is one of the three primary hallmarks of the system in the U.S., each interdependent on the others, which I define as follows:
Clearly, what is being called a credit system in Kazakhstan now does not include any of these hallmarks.1 Culturally, the idea of individual work and choice is relatively foreign here, as later charts will show. The idea of choice in education is especially foreign to Kazakhstan, which did not exist as an independent state in the modern era until relatively recently and inherited the rigid, centralized Soviet system of education. On a practical level, shifting from a centralized to a decentralized system will require a number of new specialists at each individual HEI. Who is going to oversee all of that? Who is going to pay for it? The economics of change The great expense of education is the number two weakness of the American system listed by the survey respondents (Table 2.2). And it is true; the rising average cost of higher education is a concern to many families in America. Many HEIs “charge a ridiculous amount” for tuition, as one American survey respondent wrote, which makes the cost of an education “daunting.” But good material resources were listed as the number three strength. Additionally, as seen above, research is highly stressed in America, and professors are given ample time for it; teaching loads, being much smaller than in Kazakhstan, require the hiring of more teachers. All of this comes at a cost, and somebody must pay for it. So where does funding for education in the United States comes from? Broadly speaking, it can be said to come from three categories of sources: 1. Public, or governmental, sources. This can come from the federal level; from the state level, as a percentage of the state’s budget (as is the case with public universities); and in the form of grants and other awards. 2. Private sources, either corporate or personal. In most cases, both businesses and individuals receive generous tax breaks for donating to higher education. In some cases, large corporations are required by law to give away a certain percentage of their income, and higher education is often a recipient of many of these gifts. HEI foundations run fundraising campaigns which specifically solicit private donations. 3. Tuition and other fees. HEIs are limited in how much these may be raised each year, but in a time when public funding is providing an increasingly lower percentage of institutions’ needs, tuition hikes are being used to partially make up the difference. In contrast, Kazakhstan does not enjoy such a wide variety of funding sources. The government does not fund HEIs to the level they require, nor does the country have a cultural history of corporate and personal giving as the United State does. In order to fund the upcoming changes, many Kazakhstani HEIs may be faced with the unpleasant task of raising tuition. However, there is another option: to aggressively pursue alternate sources of funding that have largely been untapped up to now.2 Such opportunities might include, though are certainly not limited to, the following: 1. Partnerships with other governments. Successful examples of this already in Kazakhstan include the Kazakh-British Technical University in Almaty, the Kazakh-Russian Modern Humanitarian University in Karaganda, and the Kazakh-Turkish University in Turkistan, among others. This option has the disadvantage of giving up autonomy (at least partially) to a foreign agency, but in today’s increasingly interconnected world, this is not necessarily a bad idea. In fact, such multinational educational partnerships may someday become, as multinational corporations are becoming now, the standard of business. 2. Cash grants. The World Bank, United Nations, and other international organizations have a variety of programs designed to aid developing countries, and these programs often include the sphere of education. 3. In-kind gifts and services. Kazakhstan is already familiar with this to some degree—securing used computers, books, recording equipment, furniture, even paint and concrete from local sources for little or no cost. But educators should think beyond local sources to national and international ones. For example, an American company may be reluctant to provide a cash grant to a Kazakhstani HEI, but it may offer an in-kind grant of equipment or a professor exchange. Educators here should seek out such opportunities. 4. Establishing foundations and/or fundraising campaigns. While Kazakhstan does not have a cultural history of corporate and personal giving, it now has something the other Central Asian republics do not: a substantial middle class. In theory, there is a small but growing base of donors to draw on for fundraising activities. However, in practice, it is highly unlikely that private giving will become established in even the smallest way here until the problem of corruption is eliminated and HEIs establish and follow transparent financial practices. Intimately connected with all of this is the need to raise faculty salaries. According to a report on higher education by the Kazakhstan Ministry of Education and Science, the average salary of HEIs’ academic staff members (professors, docents, senior lecturers, and assistants) in 2002 was only 17,215 tenge, or approximately $111.06, per month.3 Teachers in particular are rapidly leaving the profession for higher-paying jobs in the private sector, primarily being replaced by young recent graduates. If Kazakhstan is to keep its experienced teachers, raising the salaries of academic staff members must be its top priority. Fortunately, there is hope that the economic climate might change soon. In a 9 March 2005 discussion on Kazakhstan’s new reform process, Kenzhegali Sagadiyev, Chairman of the Parliament Committee on Finance and Budget, said that in five years Kazakhstan plans to raise education spending from 3% of GDP to 6%, comparable to the average of developed nations.4 Beyond economics: independent work, strategic planning, and research The reason for the difference in the two pictures above is in large part economic: America’s economy is old and well developed while Kazakhstan’s is young and still growing. Given this, Kazakhstani educators in many ways are actually doing an outstanding job of transmitting knowledge. But there is more to the differences than economics. First I wish to focus in some detail on one particular difference between the two systems: the amount of time spent studying in and out of class. Independent work The typical American student’s class load of three one-hour classes per day may seem small compared to the typical Kazakhstani student’s class load of four “pairs” per day, but there are two items to consider. The first is that in America, an academic hour is 50 minutes long; in Kazakhstan it is still generally 40. Therefore, three academic hours in America equals 2 1/2 real hours while eight academic hours in Kazakhstan equals 5 1/3 real hours. The second, and far more important consideration, is that for every hour students study in the classroom in America, they should expect to study two hours on their own. When I asked my students here (I taught approximately 100 per semester) how long they study on their own after classes each day, the average answer was two hours. Thus, the typical American student studies 8 1/2 hours a day (three academic hours in class and six real hours at home or elsewhere). The typical Kazakhstani student studies 7 1/3 hours a day (eight academic hours in class and two real hours at home or elsewhere). The figures are nearly identical, especially when considering that Kazakhstani semesters are usually 17 weeks long, compared to 15 weeks in America. The main point is that American students do most of their work outside the classroom, Kazakhstani students inside it. This makes perfect sense when considering each culture. In America, every student either owns a computer or has free access to one, as well as free or extremely inexpensive access to the internet. Libraries are well stocked and easy to borrow from. Textbooks for class are nearly always the latest editions. In Kazakhstan, some students own their own computers, but most do not, and internet access is neither universal nor cheap. Libraries are generally not well stocked, particularly with more recent material, and borrowing books often takes much time and effort. Often there are no textbooks in class, and those in use may be greatly outdated. Having established this, one important question must be asked: how will a Kazakhstani student be able to conduct the kind of independent work required of the new “American-style” system? American students can work independently because they have the resources to do so. “We don’t have the basis for giving student[s] individual assignments for independent work (I mean libraries, computers, access to the internet, etc.),” a Kazakhstani teacher wrote. “We must first work in terms of our resources!” This is an excellent suggestion. However, such suggestions, including those in this paper, will not help to make the coming transition successful if they are not included as part of a package of comprehensive strategic plans—long-term, mid-term, short-term, and immediate. Strategic planning and research In a true credit system, strategic planning is the responsibility of each individual HEI, not the central government, and thus must necessarily be tailored to each HEI’s individual needs and goals. These goals should be SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relative, and time-bound. For example, an HEI could have a goal to increase the number of up-to-date research materials in its library by a certain percentage in a certain number of years—perhaps 25% in five years. A benchmark figure would need to be established, which in this case would mean accurately counting the library’s current stocks. Progress toward the goal could then be measured based on this information. In addition to such institutional research priorities, teachers in higher education must be provided with greater opportunities to explore their own individual research interests. Given their burdensome workload, Kazakhstani teachers do not have the time to adequately research or participate in career development activities. If Kazakhstan is to truly achieve excellence in its education system, it must address this problem. Reducing teachers’ workloads provides a number of tangible benefits: it increases time for research and other career development activities, which in turn leads to more knowledgeable teachers. Having more knowledgeable teachers is an asset to any HEI, for it increases that institution’s reputation and prestige. This in turn results in more students desiring to attend that institution, a higher premium for tuition, or both, resulting in increased revenue. Myths about the American educational system In the previous typical American educational picture, one might have been struck at how it differs from the answers given by the survey respondents, particularly Kazakhstani citizens, in at least two areas. I call these answers “myths,” for reasons I will explore in more detail below. Both are so widely pervasive, I can only guess they have been perpetuated because of a simple but gross misunderstanding of the American system of education in general. As Kazakhstan is now adopting that system, it is imperative that both educators and students understand them. Myth #1: Students in America are narrowly educated only to be specialists None of the survey respondents questioned the idea that an American education is more specialized than a Kazakhstani one. There are, however, some erroneous ideas on just how specialized it is. The following comment from a student respondent is representative of many Kazakhstani respondents’ comments concerning American higher education: “Students study only one subject and know only about one sphere.” While well stated, it is unfortunately incorrect. A typical American student actually must choose both a major field of study and a minor one, called, respectively, a “major” and a “minor.” One’s major would be called in Kazakhstan one’s specialty—for example, Computer Science, Journalism, Psychology. However, most students must also choose a minor different from their major. While students sometimes choose related areas of study—such as pairing Biology with Environmental Studies—more often these two fields of study are only loosely related, if at all. The effect, which is the intent of this system, is to broaden a student’s education. In addition to this, most HEIs require students to meet basic institution-wide requirements (often called General Education Requirements) or, as is the case with larger HEIs such as universities, the requirements of their respective large administrative units (e.g., the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business)—that is, students must take a certain number of science classes, history classes, philosophy classes, etc., as well as study a foreign language. As in Kazakhstan, these “core classes” generally consume students’ first two years of study. It is only during the third and fourth years that they are able to focus on their majors. Again, the effect is that students are educated more broadly beyond the requirements of their chosen specialties. Myth #2: Students in America choose all or most of their classes Related to the above myth is the idea that American students enjoy a tremendous freedom of choice, a much greater freedom than in reality they do. The truth is that American students typically only choose about half of their classes, as each major and minor has class requirements that cannot be changed. Most of the remaining half must be chosen from within certain predefined fields, usually based on a student’s college or school requirements. Very few classes fall into the category commonly called “free electives.” What does all of this mean for Kazakhstan? The reply to myth #2 is bad news to those who listed choice of classes/teachers as the number one American educational strength (Table 2.1) but good news to those who wish to retain some sense of the breadth (and control) the old system offered. More specifically, the replies to both myths mean that it will be someone’s job at each HEI to determine exactly what the requirements will be for every major and minor field of study that institution offers. In America this is usually done at the college/school and departmental levels. Also, a system must be put in place to track all students’ performances to ensure that they are meeting their individual requirements. The office handling this, often called Registration and Records in America, also keeps records of grades and grade point averages. Academic advisors and a comprehensive academic advising system will be needed, as well as graduate placement counselors and other career center administrators, to mention just two of the support services that currently do not exist in Kazakhstan. The good news is that all of this potentially could create new jobs in the educational sector in Kazakhstan. The bad news is that poor economic conditions—or the reluctance of HEI administrations to pay—will more likely ensure that already overburdened teachers take on these extra tasks. Strengths of the Kazakhstani system that may be lost “Kazakhstan is not ready to change to an American-style system, and it shouldn’t lose the advantages of its own education system,” warns one Kazakhstani teacher. Sadly, all three of Kazakhstan’s top educational strengths listed by the survey respondents are in danger of being lost—two because of the shift to a new system, the third because of inadequate pay. I wish to look at them more closely here in the hopes of stressing the cultural importance of these three current and historic strengths. 1. Broad education The greatest strength of the Kazakhstani education system mentioned by the survey respondents—and mentioned far more than any other—is the broad nature of the education provided here (Table 1.1). This is a cornerstone of a classic liberal education, and Kazakhstan rightly should be proud of it. Unfortunately, it is going to be difficult if not impossible to maintain such breadth in the new credit system. While it is true that Americans are more broadly educated than people here generally believe, the American system simply does not allow for the number of subjects students are accustomed to studying in Kazakhstan. This is due to the emphasis on student independence which requires a great amount of individual work and research outside of the class, as has already been discussed. My suggestion to Kazakhstani educators is this: rather than seeing this as a disappointment or, worse, a disaster, see it instead as an opportunity to streamline your system and focus on making the classes you already teach well even better. Keep in mind that providing a broad range of classes should not be confused with providing deep knowledge. For example, the majority of classes my students in Kazakhstan took were offered three times every two weeks—that is, on average these classes met for only three academic hours, or 120 real minutes, a week. Many classes are offered only once a week (80 minutes). It is extremely difficult for a teacher to explore his or her subject deeply in such a limited amount of time. (I have personally experienced this frustration.) Also, not all classes taught at Kazakhstani HEIs would be considered appropriate in America. For example, “Civil Defense” and “The Techniques of Safety,” both recently taught at my former university, would be handled by the Red Cross or a similar agency in America. Another American teacher questioned the need for the interpretation students at his university to study stenography, which he called an “archaic” subject. Whether it is or not in Kazakhstan is exactly the kind of debate that will soon be enacted many times over with many other subjects. So, rather than mourning the loss of their ability to provide a broad education, Kazakhstani HEIs should seize this as an opportunity to decide which subjects are truly valuable and which are not, to cut those which are not, and to provide adequate time (and resources) for those remaining in order to more properly teach them. 2. Strong teachers Even though low level of knowledge/experience of teachers was listed as the number two weakness of the Kazakhstani educational system (Table 1.2), it should be no surprise that strong teachers were listed as the number three strength (Table 1.1). An American couple noted the “educational tradition and cultural importance” of the system, while a student respondent wrote, “maybe it was the best system in Soviet times.” Best or not, it was certainly respected, and many of the teachers trained in those times remain in the system today. Unfortunately, many more have also left, and Kazakhstan continues to lose qualified teachers at an alarming rate, mainly to the private sector where they can make substantially more money. This may at least partially explain why though strong teachers were listed as the number three strength, a relatively small percentage of respondents (7%) expressed this. An encouraging sign is that all of them were students. “In some universities we have quite professional teachers, and it means they give good knowledge,” one student respondent noted. Another wrote that “teachers are well-educated. Their method of teaching is high.” How long this remains so is uncertain. The transition to a new system is likely, at least in the short term, to create confusion, instability, and increased workloads for already overworked teachers—not a good formula to encourage the best ones to stay. If they do not, the percentage of those who cite the low knowledge/experience of teachers as a weakness is almost certain to rise. 3. Group system This was not listed as a strength by any of the Kazakhstani survey respondents, justifying, perhaps, the folk wisdom that it is easier to find something to criticize than to praise. But it was the number one strength listed by the American respondents, making it the number two strength overall (Table 1.1). “The help and cross-pollination of groupmates can invigorate learning—this can keep a poor student going long enough to become a good student,” one American teacher wrote. This is, if not part of the design, certainly one of the beneficial effects of the group system. However, an unintended effect of this system may be that it “seems to not create any sort of independent thought,” as another American teacher noted. Students in turn become more reliant on their teachers. Teachers in their turn become more responsible for students’ learning because individuals are no longer accountable; that is, all of those in a group share in its strengths and successes, but they also share in its weaknesses and failures—blame is absorbed, personal responsibility absolved. In such an atmosphere, working hard is not nearly as important as helping others in the group. This may explain my personal observation that Kazakhstani teachers tend to value knowledge over hard work; that is, if a student misses lectures, is often late, and/or does not do homework, that student will not be heavily penalized as long as he or she demonstrates adequate knowledge of the subject at the end of the semester. However, the American teachers I know here tend to substantially lower the grades of students who fail to work hard (come to class prepared and on time), regardless of their level of knowledge. Why? Because Americans value hard work equally with knowledge. In fact, this value is the essence of meritocracy. A meritocracy is a system whereby only those who display merit earn advancement. This is the heart of the American educational system. A system based on individual choices means nothing if individual students do not have the option to either succeed or fail. Are educators here prepared for this? They must become so soon, for an American-style system simply will not work unless individuals are held responsible for their work; the level of independence required demands this. With students spending more time studying outside of class than in it, teachers will no longer be able to maintain the tight control that they currently are used to in Kazakhstan. Many students will be unprepared for these changes and will not do well, but the system must allow them to fail. That is, there must be a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered classrooms. What do I mean by this? In the survey I defined each classroom style as follows:
After reading these definitions, the survey respondents were asked to choose only one answer for each of the two questions below: Table 3.1
Table 3.2
A full 56% of respondents rated the Kazakhstani system as “more teacher-centered” or “teacher-centered”; more significantly, 75% of the teachers did. By contrast, a mere 5% of respondents rated the American system in this way, and none of the teachers did. Nothing in these figures suggests that either style of classroom is inherently superior in all situations; both have their advantages and disadvantages, and the requirements of each class dictate which style is best for that class. However, a primarily student-centered system is essential to the American credit system, and this is what Kazakhstan is ostensibly modeling. Culturally it should be no surprise that the Kazakhstani system was rated more teacher-centered and the American system more student-centered, for an emphasis on individual initiative and responsibility naturally puts the focus more on the student. If Kazakhstan fully adapts this new system, it will likely see this shift in focus as well. Emphasis on group learning will significantly decline, though it is unlikely to completely disappear soon. The challenge will be to balance this historic classroom dynamic with the requirements of the new system. Weaknesses of the Kazakhstani system that must be addressed What are the weaknesses of the Kazakhstani system that will make adjustment to an American-style credit system especially difficult? The number two and three weaknesses listed by the survey respondents, low knowledge/experience of teachers and lack of material resources, have been discussed elsewhere in this paper. I wish to examine the number one weakness listed by Kazakhstani citizens and foreigners alike, teachers and students—bribery/corruption (Table 1.2). Not every institution experiences this problem—I never witnessed it in two years at my university—but as this answer was given overwhelmingly more than any other on the survey, and by the highest percentage of respondents, it must be considered seriously.5 While a culture of corruption has become imbedded deeply in the education system as in society, it is not the aim of this paper to either explore its causes or offer possible solutions to it. Rather, this paper aims to address what such corruption will mean on a practical level in implementing the new system of education. Put simply, it is this: as long as corruption exists within the Kazakhstani educational system, all methods of reform are doomed to fail. In particular, corruption is incompatible with an American-style system. This is because a system of bribery is the antithesis of a meritocracy. And a meritocracy, as we have already seen, is the basis of the American educational system. Corruption also has the effect of devaluing an education here, making Kazakhstani diplomas worth less in the international job market than diplomas from countries without corruption (a problem Kazakhstan unfortunately shares with many other former Soviet states). Additionally, it makes it much more difficult to secure funding from other countries, which demand accountability in how their gifts or loans are being used. The burden will be on Kazakhstan to establish credibility that it is using its resources in a fair manner and for what they were intended. Finally, a corrupt system is ultimately not accountable, and personal accountability is absolutely essential to independent thought and work. If Kazakhstan is truly interested in having its educational system recognized and accepted by the Western world, it must first and foremost address the problem of corruption here. The simplest and most effective method of eradicating corruption is to establish and follow transparent financial practices. Transparency creates trust in the system. Trust attracts more individuals to the system—when students and parents see that their tuition money is being spent responsibly, they will choose the responsible institutions; when foreign governments and aid organizations see that their funds are being used for what they were intended, they will continue their aid. Thus in the long term, transparency makes the most financial sense. Adopting an American-style credit system is not necessarily the answer. As has been discussed, and as it will be further explored below, there are many cultural differences that may make complete adoption of a foreign system of education unwise and ineffective. But regardless of the system implemented in Kazakhstan, the problems of corruption and lack of transparency must be addressed. A contrast of work and study habits The American education system is not perfect, as some of the weaknesses mentioned by its graduates make clear. However, it is a highly effective system for training individuals to work and think independently, to be self-responsible citizens. These are skills in great demand in today’s global market economy, skills that in some instances drive it. As I have attempted to show, they are learned in part culturally, making American students better disposed to succeed in a higher education environment that requires them. But the higher education environment in turn sharpens these skills to a greater degree. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. The next set of tables illustrates how perceived work and study habits in Kazakhstan and the United States are interrelated. Table 4.1
Table 4.2
In looking at tables 4.1 and 4.2 one is immediately struck by two items: first, at how each table is a mirror image of the other—where Kazakhstani students are perceived to usually work in groups but sometimes individually, American students are perceived oppositely; secondly, that answers are given in the same proportion regardless of the group responding—students, Kazakhstani teachers, or American teachers. Now compare these to the following two tables: Table 5.1
Table 5.2
These tables, in conjunction with the previous two, make my main thesis clear: where Kazakhstanis are perceived to study more in groups, so are they perceived to work more in groups; where Americans are perceived to study more individually, so are they perceived to work more individually. In other words, the educational pattern fits the broader cultural pattern. The implications of this are enormous in relation to the current educational change. If Kazakhstanis as a whole are overwhelmingly oriented toward group work not only in the classroom but outside of it, how are they going to gain the independent skills necessary for success in an American-style system? This question goes beyond economics, beyond a lack of resources, beyond how people live, work, and study here—beyond all cultural differences—and goes straight to the psychology of the people. “It is necessary to adopt the international system of education, but KZ is not ready to accept it in such a short period of time. We are not ready for that either economically, nor psychologically.…” a Kazakhstani teacher wrote. “First, we need to make a strong connection of secondary and higher education. In school students should be taught first lessons of independent work.” Again, this is an excellent suggestion, for it properly recognizes that a foundation must be laid before the house is built—and it inherently suggests that any house built without a foundation will immediately come crashing down. But an educational foundation cannot be built of students; they are the inhabitants for whom the house is built. Before students can learn how to work independently, their teachers, who were also raised and trained in a group-oriented environment, must learn how to do so first. Is Kazakhstan ready for a new system? Finally, survey participants were asked to respond to the following question: Table 6
|