In Bed or in Class: Attention Span Zero

Yesterday, while compiling results for a BS semester I realized that many students kept on reiterating that papers should not be held on campus. Rather should be conducted online. I was bemused and wondered why those students demanded that. These students were able to achieve in their previous semester A, A+, B+s while on campus they managed B, B-, Cs. It was not hard for me to evaluate what they missed about online exams. The demand of average Pakistani students “GPA 3.0 se above rakhna” was becoming easier and more convenient.

This is how it goes on campus: University students have to be on campus for a 1.5 credit hour lecture, sometimes for a combined 3 credits hour-depending on the availability of the venue, free slots and stamina or choice of the lecturer. The same goes for online class hours. Lecturer-student availability should be ensured in the allotted time frame. Educationists, academics, and social workers have reiterated time and again about the difficulties faced by students and teachers alike due to the online mechanism of education. However, the emphasis has always been on the technical or administrative issues faced due to circumstantially enforced online pedagogy mechanisms.

My observation lies in the emotions of the students associated with these online platforms of education. I have in my classes three types of students; one group is a staunch advocate of campus learning (the enthusiastic learners), another group loves reminiscing the past and asks for the online system to get back and yet a majority of students remain quiet and express no concern at all for either online method or on-campus lectures. My interest lies in all of them but I am rather curious about the third. Let me present a rough analysis.

Students who advocated campus learning are either those who desire an ‘eye contact’ with the lecturer, they search for the expression of the teacher or the look on fellow students face when they tackle with a difficult topic or simply, because they want to get up in the morning, catch their bus, hang around in corridors before arriving late in the class and choosing the back seat to lay back and relax. And then there are those who are, as we say in American lingo: geeks or theetas; they seek recognition and validation and they want to suck in even the invisible aura of knowledge emanating from the lecture room. I believe these people miss the on-campus experience because they associate their functionality with it.

Other students who advocate online learning could be introverts, perhaps. Usually those who despite the disruption in routine were self-disciplined enough to get up in the morning and sit at their study table to listen to the lecture being delivered via zoom or Google classrooms. Another reason can be the comfort that comes with it – avoiding the morning hustle bustle or simply the convenience of less travel time. Students who remain indifferent to the means and medium of lecture strike as worrisome for me. They are the ones who we call as “khuli ankhon ke sath sonay walay”(sleeping with eyes wide open). They are there in campus, passively sitting in those uncomfortable erect wooden chairs and in online classes, they are those who are half dozing off in beds with micss off and earphones plugged in as the teacher delivers lecture at the other end, half the time feeling as if she is talking to herself. Even if asked to switch on their video call, the lecturer simply cannot trace her eyes on the screen and shake a student up to pay attention (that also when my screen is open for a class of 30-40 students).

So, the dilemma is not unique to experts of pedagogy: why are some students active and others remain indifferent and passive learners? If psychological evaluations are made we might say that there are factors like short attention span, adult ADHD, individual will power and self-driven motivation and discipline. Interest in the field, core subject and studying environment also plays a crucial role. However, in online education these factors resurfaced to another level because the student was challenged to adopt a new structure setting aside his/her idiosyncrasies because he/she will go through an exam and will have to pass it eventually. And this is where the sad part comes in: Grading on behalf of the lecturer and cheating on behalf of students. 

These two ethics of exam-conduction cannot be merely inculcated by conventional educational methods or dictation in morning assemblies. It comes from the society… the culture… and the primary nurturing unit: family. Why is it normal to cheat/ plagiarize during an online exam? Why is it normal to give ‘grace marks’? Why is it normal for lecturers to make a couple of slides, describe and explain it, give a random assignment and call it a day? Why has this been normalized as “pass kardein inko”? These questions and its solutions fall beyond the parameters of internet availability or failure of university administration to conduct classes online. These dilemmas are a directive of something deeper in the collective psyche and practices of our society. From normalizing lecturers not to engage students critically to normalizing corruption in upper echelons of leadership, these students and lecturers alike, need to ask themselves this primary question which ideally should strike to them on an existential level: are they zombies living on autopilot mode of existence or have they lost the will to strive for the truth?