How do we balance the demands of the University, students, colleagues and family? How do we satisfy principle and conscience when the vectors of our multiple audiences seem sometimes complementary, sometimes antithetical? How can we operate with equity and equilibrium?

One way to manage this dilemma is to unify these apparently opposing concerns under one umbrella, so that they are aligned and hence synergised into one whole.
Teaching and professional concerns surpass their seeming contradiction when viewed at a higher level of purpose.

University teaching is geared towards shaping tomorrow’s leaders. And to be professional, in my mind, transcends the bounds of its traditional meaning. To me, to be professional is not to abuse our freedoms; to operate with unquestionable trust and integrity; and adhere to both articulated and non-articulated codes of conduct. These concerns can be easily harmonised.

Every profession has its code of conduct that enshrines the general first principles for appropriate behaviour. In our case, the NUS Code of Conduct (HR 083/03 at http://www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/research/) serves this purpose.

Briefly, our Code is based on 3 principles:

1. Personal and professional integrity (covering items such as conscientiousness, plagiarism, confidentiality, accepting gifts, personal and professional relationships, conflict of interests, research integrity, and guidelines and policies governing the use of human and animal subjects).
   
   
2. Respect for people (covering exemplary decorum, due credit and proper acknowledgment).
   
   
3. Respect for the law and University governance (covering legality).

All Codes and laws convey parallel messages. But a Code attempts to manage the grey areas. Hence its interpretation is subjective and can differ according to culture and value system. Despite this limitation, we can be professional in all our actions, whether simple or significant, by focusing on the universals.

Let’s do a simple self-test. Are we using smudged transparencies or slides with illegible and misspelt words with eye-straining colour combinations? Do we defend this by saying that we are not technology-savvy? We can be professional through simplicity in our visuals, and hence be exemplars to students.

The questions are endless. Do we badmouth our colleagues and institution? Do we give due credit to our students’ research? Some departments have even published and showcased their meritorious works. Do we caution students against plagiarism? Do we maintain confidentiality especially in examination matters? And do our personal and professional relationships run into conflict?

Next is the issue of quality versus quantity—the larger the class size, the larger the strain in maintaining performance standard. Is it because we are rigidly polar in our approach? Then we should have flexible approaches in our delivery to cater to different audience sizes, room constraints and class character and not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.

Another issue we face is the epistemological-pedagogical balance. Content, process, thinking and learning can all be managed by comparing our assumption of how much the students (should) know with how much we want to explain or tell them. Some lecturers err by spoon-feeding (i.e. telling and explaining everything and flooding students with notes), creating the very lethargy, indifference and total dependence on us that we ourselves abhor in students. Where then are their reading and thinking on the topic?

The other extreme is equally culpable. Some lecturers return students’ queries without clear answers all the time to the point of frustration. Some agree with every response from the students, whatever they are, either for popularity or in fear. Yet others in the name of fun dispense a disproportionate time to humour and laughter at the expense of learning. While the buzz in class during an activity can indicate the excitement of the students, humour should be tempered and balanced to sustain interest and academic rigour.

Our self-test continues into deeper waters. Do we ourselves grasp the nascent meanings, innuendos and ramifications of the concept of student learning? We can attain higher levels of students’ thinking and performance by using models such as Bloom’s Taxonomy. Some of us may not be using it because we may not be familiar with it; or we fear intimidating students on the first day of class. By exposing them to these ideas we can reduce the students’ uncertainty and raise their anticipation for the course by our reassurances to guide them. Hence, I make it a point to introduce the Taxonomy in every first lesson.

The next scenario: Are we preparing students for examinations or for the workplace? This inherent opposition may be reconciled if examinations ultimately, and perhaps indirectly, test students’ higher-order skills for the workplace. This is what I mean by unification and alignment and how this approach can manage our self-created paradoxical constructs that shape our paradigms.

One way that NUS responds to the global demands for a broad-based education is by crystallising General Education Modules (GEMs), Cross-faculty Modules (CFMs) and the like as a platform for our graduates to acquire a multidisciplinary spectrum. But how do we get students to engage in multidisciplinary thinking if we ourselves are rigidly specialised; to be critical if we swallow without question; to be “open-book” if we remain closed ourselves?

Professionalism entails artistry, and our value ascends when our students enjoy learning. Students respect and admire us when we impart knowledge that is novel, share experiences and possibilities, and make them think and wonder beyond the course and examinations. These are the teachers and the modules that students remember and love. This is where they are inspired to select a specialisation because of us. This is where we make a difference to students, ourselves and NUS firstly, and to the larger society consequentially. This is what is meant when we say we mould young minds, shape the future and grow in the process. This is the greater reward for all.

In the NUS President’s Circular No. 2003–11, dated 29 November 2003 (http://my.nus.edu.sg/SAPPORTAL/), Professor Shih Choon Fong challenged the University “to question our way of doing things as well as its underlying assumptions”. Do we aim to discover and manage the uncharted territories within ourselves? If so, do we then catalyse self-change?

My experience is that rules and Codes merely echo our silent principles and inner voices. Doesn’t our conscience tell us exactly the same thing as these Codes? And do we follow? That is the ultimate yet simple question.