The relationship between lecturers and students at Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia : a comparison between three faculties
This article attempted to explore the different kinds of relationship existing between lecturers and students across three faculties at the University of Gadjah Mada and the factors influencing these relationships.
The research data which we collected in the Faculty of Medicine, the Faculty of Economics and in the Faculty of Cultural Sciences by conducting qualitative interviews with lecturers and students and by doing participant observation in these faculties showed us that different norms determining the relationship between lecturers and students in the different faculties can exist within one university.
Bourdieu’s theories help us to understand why faculties within a university differ from each other substantially. In his opinion the upper classes manipulate the education system through economic means, i.e. through the demands of the labour market. We observed in our research that the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Economics had stronger connections to governmental and non-governmental institutions than the Faculty of Cultural Sciences. They also had higher tuition fees than the Faculty of Cultural Sciences and were able to offer their students better studying conditions with regard to classrooms, libraries, internet facilities etc. Thus, Bourdieu’s thesis can be confirmed. In this case the upper classes manipulate the university education system through their connections to and investments in the different faculties.
Due to the limited time for our research, we were unable to explore all the possible factors determining the lecturer-student relationship, such as the gender aspect. Nevertheless, we were able to identify the following factors. Firstly, the relationship is affected by the faculties’ teaching and learning methods. As the example of the Faculty of Medicine showed, the use of PBL lowered the total duration of the communication time between lecturers and students. In this faculty students had less contact with their lecturers as the PBL method aims to encourage the students to learn more by discussing problems among themselves.
The time allotted to communication is also affected by the lecturers’ busy schedules. Both in the Faculty of Medicine and in the Faculty of Economics some lecturers were engaged in research projects issued by the government or by external institutions. In the Faculty of Medicine the lecturers worked in the hospital after they finished teaching. The lecturers in the Faculty of Economics were forced to teach longer hours in order to increase their salaries. Due to these factors the time that a lecturer spends to supervise
29
his/her students is reduced. In both of these faculties the students had a formal relationship with their lecturers. They very rarely met for non-academic activities.
On the other hand, the relationship between lecturers and students in the Faculty of Cultural Sciences was more informal. This might be due to the departments’ subjects taught in this faculty which are related to culture and people, or it might result from the fact that the lecturers had more time to spend with their students compared with the lecturers of the Faculties of Medicine and Economics.
Nevertheless, the three faculties shared some similarities with regard to the lecturer-student relationship, such as the fact that the students did not criticize their lecturers or that the younger lecturers did not criticise the older lecturers because it would have been impolite according to Javanese culture. Another similarity was that the students had difficulties in implementing the student-centered learning methods probably because, throughout their childhood and also in the schools, they were not taught to take on their own responsibilities.
In summary, the relationship between lecturers and students at the University of Gadjah Mada is shaped by the faculties’ teaching and learning methods, as well as the faculties’ connections to the government and other institutions, the faculties’ subjects, Javanese cultural norms, school education, the experiences of the lecturers who had studied abroad and the personalities of lecturers and students alike.
The research data which we collected in the Faculty of Medicine, the Faculty of Economics and in the Faculty of Cultural Sciences by conducting qualitative interviews with lecturers and students and by doing participant observation in these faculties showed us that different norms determining the relationship between lecturers and students in the different faculties can exist within one university.
Bourdieu’s theories help us to understand why faculties within a university differ from each other substantially. In his opinion the upper classes manipulate the education system through economic means, i.e. through the demands of the labour market. We observed in our research that the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Economics had stronger connections to governmental and non-governmental institutions than the Faculty of Cultural Sciences. They also had higher tuition fees than the Faculty of Cultural Sciences and were able to offer their students better studying conditions with regard to classrooms, libraries, internet facilities etc. Thus, Bourdieu’s thesis can be confirmed. In this case the upper classes manipulate the university education system through their connections to and investments in the different faculties.
Due to the limited time for our research, we were unable to explore all the possible factors determining the lecturer-student relationship, such as the gender aspect. Nevertheless, we were able to identify the following factors. Firstly, the relationship is affected by the faculties’ teaching and learning methods. As the example of the Faculty of Medicine showed, the use of PBL lowered the total duration of the communication time between lecturers and students. In this faculty students had less contact with their lecturers as the PBL method aims to encourage the students to learn more by discussing problems among themselves.
The time allotted to communication is also affected by the lecturers’ busy schedules. Both in the Faculty of Medicine and in the Faculty of Economics some lecturers were engaged in research projects issued by the government or by external institutions. In the Faculty of Medicine the lecturers worked in the hospital after they finished teaching. The lecturers in the Faculty of Economics were forced to teach longer hours in order to increase their salaries. Due to these factors the time that a lecturer spends to supervise
29
his/her students is reduced. In both of these faculties the students had a formal relationship with their lecturers. They very rarely met for non-academic activities.
On the other hand, the relationship between lecturers and students in the Faculty of Cultural Sciences was more informal. This might be due to the departments’ subjects taught in this faculty which are related to culture and people, or it might result from the fact that the lecturers had more time to spend with their students compared with the lecturers of the Faculties of Medicine and Economics.
Nevertheless, the three faculties shared some similarities with regard to the lecturer-student relationship, such as the fact that the students did not criticize their lecturers or that the younger lecturers did not criticise the older lecturers because it would have been impolite according to Javanese culture. Another similarity was that the students had difficulties in implementing the student-centered learning methods probably because, throughout their childhood and also in the schools, they were not taught to take on their own responsibilities.
In summary, the relationship between lecturers and students at the University of Gadjah Mada is shaped by the faculties’ teaching and learning methods, as well as the faculties’ connections to the government and other institutions, the faculties’ subjects, Javanese cultural norms, school education, the experiences of the lecturers who had studied abroad and the personalities of lecturers and students alike.
source: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/3160/
by: Taniar Rachma P
4 comments:
I don’t agree with this kind of system in which students communicate less with the lecturers. Students need to talk and have communication with their lecturers. Most of the students have problems maybe personal or social which only can be solved by the need of their teachers or better to say lecturers. It’s been proved that when students like the personality of their lecturers they really enjoy doing assignments and study for the subjects. Since most of us know that the only way to know characteristics is achieved by communication, students must have time to communicate with lecturers. This helps them to know their environment better and can solve problem easier especially international students.
I don’t like this system because a university is like a family and it must be unit but in this university different faculty have different facility and tuition fee or better to say different faculties have different roles that is not good in my opinion. Also, lecturers don’t have good communication with their students and as the researcher said it’s because they have busy schedule that it cannot be a reason. When students and lecturers cannot have communication to each other how they can work together?
Yes its true zahra, actually its not good for student even for the lecture. I think the relationship between student and lecture suppose to be close. Because it will make easier to them to share anything. It suppose to have no limited of communication between them.
Actually,this system is like machine system.You only have to enter the code and then work with it.Lectures have been ordered by the system what to tell students and students have to do it.I do not like this system at all.We are human beings not machines.This kind of relationship will not work.students need to trust their lecturers not seeing them as a person who only orders them what to do.Whenever, students get closer to their lecturers and communicate with them,They would work better.They try to prove their loyalty.Moreover,lecturers also will get to know their students better.
Post a Comment