Recently, the content of a general education course titled "Psychology of Love" at a well-known "Double First Class" university in China has sparked considerable criticism. Some netizens have even sharply labeled it as a "class on female virtue." However, while this kind of selective criticism and labeling are not advisable, some of the issues reflected in it are worth discussing.
Currently, both media reports and online discussions have only provided a few photos of course PowerPoint slides taken by attending students. Based solely on this limited information, it is not comprehensive to evaluate the merits and flaws of this course. However, one noticeable aspect from the PowerPoint slides is the "gamification" in the course delivery.
The term "gamification" originated from the subdivision of modern social life. As a lifestyle guide, it aims to achieve the best results with the least effort. However, "gamification" is merely a way of life or a technique. It's clearly inappropriate to transplant it as a teaching model into university classrooms.
Before the 1990s, during the "elite" stage of universities, there was a consensus that universities were places for the pursuit of profound knowledge, as advocated by the educator Cai Yuanpei. The tendency towards "gamification" was only reflected in some applied courses. However, since the "massification" of higher education, the trend of "gamification" seems to have become more pronounced.
In the eyes of some university practitioners, since universities have become more "massified," they should fully embody their populism. Therefore, they should cater to society, market trends, fashion, and everything else possible. Introducing "gamification" teaching into university classrooms is a product of seeking "certainty in an uncertain era."
The main characteristic of "gamification" is practicality. It combines with the approach of "quick success and immediate benefits," directly impacting the inherent foundation of universities - professionalism. Now, it seems that "gamification" is being implemented under the guise of "breaking disciplinary boundaries," particularly evident in applied "general education" courses.
It should be noted that after the excessive specialization in university majors, not only was there a breakdown in communication between disciplines but also within disciplines. The rise of general education is justified. However, the narrowness of university majors is not due to adherence to professionalism but rather to cater to market demands and enhance practicality. Therefore, logically speaking, the "gamification" of content in applied general education courses itself has an obvious irony - it attempts to solve the problems caused by excessive practicality using a "practical" approach.
Today, among university students, there are quite a few who independently purchase exam-oriented courses from social education and training institutions, either offline or online. The purely "gamified" teaching content and teaching gimmicks aimed at attracting attention by these educational institutions not only shape students' imagination of classroom teaching but also exert invisible pressure on university teachers.
Of course, some teachers take the initiative by directly registering accounts on well-known video websites and teaching online, especially in popularizing legal knowledge and culture, where outstanding individuals have indeed emerged. However, society or the market tends to favor immediately effective "strategies," and incidents sacrificing professional ethics for traffic are not uncommon.
For example, philosophy, as a highly specialized course, only provides for contemplation, not answers. However, some philosophy majors or teachers under the guise of philosophy not only boldly cross multiple disciplines but also lecture on both Chinese and Western philosophy, even making mysterious predictions like some qigong masters from the 1980s.
In university classroom teaching, the difference between "interesting" within the professional scope and being "interesting for the sake of being interesting" to cater to the masses is clear. The former is based on the free play of professional theories, while the latter, once unrestricted, inevitably descends into low-level amusement. This is the apparent difference between professionalism and "gamification."
Furthermore, although "gamification" can be repeatedly used on the same matter, overall, it is still disposable. This is the biggest difference between it and professionalism. Professional theories bring possibilities for comparison, association, and creation, serving as both the cultural nourishment for students' growth and the foundation for sustainable development. In comparison, "gamification" is merely fast food. After consumption, the lunch box, chopsticks, and packaging can all be discarded together.
Moreover, "gamification" generally only teaches techniques and does not inquire into the rationality of methods or techniques. It measures success solely by whether the goal is achieved. Therefore, "gamified" teaching does not provide space for further reflection, nor does it possess the function of self-reflection and moral judgment, which are requirements of professionalism based on scientific principles and ethical considerations.
The reason why students taking the elective course "Psychology of Love" raised questions about gender discrimination in the love techniques mentioned in the PowerPoint slides is because these "gamified" contents vulgarize the professional theories of psychology, neither adhering to modern moral principles nor reflecting on the techniques themselves. Thus, it is evident that "gamification" not only easily separates "purpose" from "means," becoming a discourse solely focused on "techniques" or "verbal tactics," but may also lead learners to resort to any means to achieve their goals. This underlying issue perhaps deserves more serious attention and contemplation.
In conclusion, professionalism is a fundamental characteristic of universities, including general education courses. It should not sacrifice professionalism for the sake of attracting students' attention. While the market emphasizes strategies, culture values uniqueness, and academia seeks exploration, good university teaching must be based on professional foundations, guiding students to further explore the unknown rationally.
(The author is a professor at the School of Politics and Public Administration, Soochow University.)
