Read on Twitter
I’ve been thinking a lot about the way we taught this spring and the ways we might want to or be asked to teach this fall. Some decisions are being made based on what students like or want—but only occasionally on what they need.
Now, I’m the first to espouse a student-centered and student-partnered pedagogy. Students directly make or inform many of the decisions in my classes: the types of assignments, the course readings, even, this spring, how we would gather remotely.
But students have also disliked many pedagogies that have since proved effective: flipped learning, for instance, and—my favorite, because I wrote a Master’s thesis on it—portfolios, which are now included as an almighty high-impact practice.
Most of the complaints about these two pedagogies were connected to the responsibility for learning that they shift from teacher to student. When students have not had the freedom to take responsibility, this feels scary, bad, wrong, and unlikable.
As the debate rages about asynchronous versus synchronous and in-person always versus hyflex or other, let’s keep in mind that student preference is 1. always connected to what they are conditioned to, 2. based on expectations gleaned from past experience or future promises, and
3. always for good, humane teaching. Whatever (plat)form or medium our teaching takes place on/in this fall, we must make sure we 1. made the best pedagogical choice for our particular course and 2. explain, set expectations for, and teach students how to learn within that space.
I’m tired of fighting over all of this.
