Recently, the course content of "Love Psychology," a general education course at a "Double First-Class" university in China, has drawn criticism. Some comments have been particularly pointed, with the course being labeled as a "female morality class." Of course, such out-of-context and accusatory criticisms are inappropriate, but there are valid concerns worth discussing.
Currently, both media reports and online discussions are based solely on a few course PPT slides taken by students. This limited information precludes a comprehensive evaluation of the course. However, the PPT content clearly reveals a notable characteristic: the "gamification" of course instruction.
"Game strategy," or "gamification," emerged in response to the increasing specialization of modern society. As a life guide, it aims to achieve optimal results with minimal effort. However, "strategy" is merely a life method or technique. Adopting it as a teaching model in university classrooms is evidently inappropriate.
Before the 1990s, when universities were more "elite," the consensus was that, as educator Cai Yuanpei stated, universities are "places for the study of advanced scholarship." "Gamification" was only evident in a few applied courses. However, since the "massification" of higher education, "gamification" has become increasingly prevalent.
Some university practitioners believe that since higher education has become "massified," it must fully reflect the public. Thus, it should cater to society, the market, fashion, and any other potential audience. The introduction of "gamification" in university classrooms is a product of the search for "certainty in uncertain times."
"Gamification" is characterized by practicality and is often intertwined with a "shortcut" approach, directly impacting the traditional foundation of universities: professionalism. It appears that "gamification" is being implemented under the guise of "breaking disciplinary boundaries" and is particularly evident in applied "general education" courses.
While it is true that excessive specialization in university majors can hinder communication between disciplines and within them, the rationale for the rise of general education is not rooted in the adherence to professionalism but rather in the need to meet market demands and emphasize practicality. Therefore, the "gamification" of applied general education course content is inherently paradoxical: it attempts to solve problems created by excessive "practicality" using "practical" methods.
Today, many university students pay for exam preparation courses offered by social education and training institutions. The purely "gamified" content and eye-catching teaching styles not only shape students' expectations for classroom instruction but also place pressure on university faculty.
Of course, some professors have taken the initiative to create accounts on popular video websites and teach online. They have achieved notable success, especially in disseminating legal knowledge and culture. However, society and the market often favor immediately effective "strategies," and sacrificing professional ethics for traffic is not uncommon.
For example, philosophy, a highly specialized subject, provides thought but not answers. However, certain philosophy professors, or those who teach under the banner of philosophy, not only boldly cross two or three levels of disciplines and "lecture" on both Western and Eastern philosophy, but also engage in mysterious predictions of the future, reminiscent of certain qigong masters in the 1980s.
In university classroom teaching, "interesting" content within the professional realm is distinct from sensationalism that exists merely "for the sake of being interesting." The former is a creative expression based on the comprehensive understanding of professional theory, while the latter, if unrestrained, inevitably descends into vulgarity. This is a clear distinction between professionalism and "gamification."
Moreover, while "strategies" can be repeatedly applied to the same task, they remain fundamentally disposable. This is the key difference between them and professionalism. Professional theory facilitates analogy, association, and creativity, providing students with cultural nourishment for their development and a foundation for sustainable growth. "Strategies," in contrast, are like fast food. Once consumed, the container, chopsticks, and packaging can all be discarded.
Additionally, "strategies" typically focus on techniques without questioning their underlying rationale or validity. They adopt a "whatever works is good" approach. Therefore, "gamified" instruction does not encourage further thinking or foster the capacity for self-reflection and moral judgment. This is another point of divergence from professionalism, which is grounded in scientific inquiry and ethical considerations.
The reason why students taking the "Love Psychology" course raised concerns about "gender discrimination" in the PPT's discussion of female dating strategies is that such "strategic" content represents a trivialization of professional psychological theory. It not only violates modern ethical principles but also lacks any reflection on the techniques themselves. Consequently, "strategies" can easily lead to a separation of "ends" and "means," promoting a focus on "techniques" and "rhetoric" that may even lead learners to resort to any means necessary to achieve their goals. This profound issue warrants serious attention and contemplation.
In summary, universities are characterized by their professional orientation, and general education courses are no exception. They should not sacrifice professionalism in an effort to attract student attention. The market emphasizes strategies, culture values distinctiveness, and academia pursues exploration. Good university teaching must be rooted in professional foundations, guiding students to explore the unknown with reason and understanding.
