To me, being exceptionally critical in thought is never an
inborn talent, but a way of operating one can choose to be in. The curriculum
and mode of assessment in SES paved a
pathway for us to do so. Firstly, the curriculum
brings the art of questioning. For example, we questioned why Google and Apple
chose to function in vastly different ways, how both achieved maximum
efficiency, how the French revolution affected Western philosophical construct,
and how current China and America is affected by the past.
What we have been doing is to consistently draw congruencies
between the past and the present, to piece information together and come up
with substantiated conclusions. To be able to do so requires one to be critical
of the actions made and its influence, to think beyond how an action is made,
but why it is done. Every week, as this critical thinking process is reiterated,
I find myself adopting this way of operating naturally. I believe that it is
only when I am placed in an environment where everyone operates similarly, I
can truly experience that change. SES places
me in a short 2 hours class, to facilitate a permanent change in thinking.
An aspect of SES I love is
that it encourages dissent but requires much more. It requires dissent with
concrete evidence. I love questioning, but my greatest difficulty in SES
is that I am faced with a situation where I have so much to question, but lack
concrete evidence to back up my point. SES
stresses the importance of making claims that are backed up by evidences we
have, and not just plain assumptions. To achieve this, I must incessantly read
up on a vast array of articles and sieve out the essential points to place in
my argument. Yet again, I am always faced with readings that offer a plethora
of knowledge but a paucity of assistance with regards to substantiating my
argument. But this is beneficial as it not only forces me to continuously be in
search of new information to use, but it also reflects the world as it is.
Personally, to find evidences for my presentation, I had to consult books and
various online articles, because the readings provided did not answer my
question and this is true in society as well. I believe that the society is
never binary, where I can find information on either one side or the other. It
has evolved so greatly that I must learn to pick out information from every
interview, book and oral commentaries. After which, I must choose the most
useful ones.
I applaud the student-facilitated presentation for teaching
us to do so, by setting a constrained time limit. By doing so, I must consider
which evidence I found bear the most significance when placed in my argument
and that is a useful skill in society because whether in the business sector or
the arts, no one would spend a day listening to all of my research done. What
society demands is being concise and gladly, SES
hones that skill.
What also makes this presentation a precious asset is that
it brings diversity into the class. Rather than the same teacher speaking,
students coming from different backgrounds are making presentations. When they
do so, they inevitably bring in their own styles of presentation and their own
ways of thinking By means of juxtaposing Nicholas Tey’s presentation and
Benedict’s one, we can evidently see this. I believe that this is a genuine
reflection of the society I would live in in the future, where I am subjected
to wide arrays of people speaking up. I have to adapt and make sound critiques
on each’s ideas. In view of this, SES brings
the real world to class momentarily and allows earlier preparation for the
future where adaptation is key.
Areas of improvements to the curriculum would be expanding
the scope of knowledge, especially in the countries we are studying on. It
seems to me that we are really our entire curriculum is centred about China
and America,
albeit they are main strongholds in the world now. That said, there is nothing
wrong about learning about China
and America,
their industrialization, philosophical construct, how their factories operate, and
most importantly, how their actions fit the context they are in. But I suggest
that we can use the knowledge learnt to apply to countries such as India
and Myanmar,
which are heading towards industrialization as well. That would test our skills
of adapting to different contexts but using the same knowledge. It would be
interesting to hear out different perspectives when we compare Myanmar’s
steps of industrialization with China’s
ones years ago, and then make valid conclusions. Considering that the subject
is Socio-economic studies, it would be apt to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment