I love getting feedback from students about their learning experiences. So much so that I ask for their inputs before, during and after my courses. From time to time though, I get push back from some of my colleagues that we cannot simply cater to the whims of our students. Channeling their inner Noel Gallagher (see his interview below for context), they say that while democratic inputs from the students are nice in theory, at the end of the day, we (the “wise” teachers with years of pedagogical “experience”) are supposed to know what is in their best interest and should design the courses accordingly (i.e. without too much input from the students).
Noel Gallagher talking about the pitfalls of pleasing customers.
I’m currently in the process of designing a new course on Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CP&R), and as I always do, I sent out requests to students asking them what kind of a course they want CP&R to be. I've always been one to create courses that are very student-centric in the hopes that some sense of autonomy, ownership and intrinsic motivation will keep their engagement high. For example, at certain points of the course, I like putting the students in charge of what they want to learn and incentivize them to teach and inspire their fellow students (without too much input from me). I’ve also been in consultation with the teaching staff, the exam board and the academic director to see how far we can push the boundaries.
However, whenever I talk to people about things like accreditation, quality agreements, exam regulations and the assortment of rules and guidelines that are in place (supposedly) to ensure that everyone gets a decent education, I find myself feeling rather insecure about my (unorthodox) approach and (questionable) practices. This awareness is - if nothing else - something that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable, which makes me wonder whether the university is my john that I’m trying to please, but perhaps that discussion is better saved for another post.
I also realize that while some students like the way I design and coordinate my courses, some do not (e.g. they find it too flexible or I give them too much space). In this “business”, (I’m painfully aware that) there is no way to please every customer (though I’ve tried in vain). So in the end, I design couses that I want (or that I think the students will find useful and interesting), while also creating moments where I cater to the “customers’ wishes”. In doing so, I think I’ve found a Pareto-optimal solution, but whenever I speak to colleagues who are a bit more “traditional” or the Noel Gallaghers of this world (that think I’m making the courses too student-centric), my imposter syndrome goes on overdrive, making me wonder whether what I am offering is just a middle of the road, garden variety mediocrity.
The thing is, I love Oasis and I think Gallagher has a point (to some extent, even though he’s a Mancherster City fan). Sometimes, in order to push the boundaries and to make progess, we must deviate from the norm (to paraphrase another rock legend, Frank Zappa). The customers will eventually learn to like something new, so long as what's new is also good. So as I embark on yet another journey of curriculum design and development, I find myself less than 100% sure that what I am doing is actually “good”. I’m also hoping that with enough enthusiasm and care when I actually teach the course that the students won’t realize - or really care - that I don’t exactly know what I’m doing (a la Sergio Juárez Correa). What I can say in my (partial) defense, is that without the flexibility and the autonomy that I offer to the students, I don’t think a student like Jan (see below) would ever have felt comfortable enough to do a presentation like the one he did (which was awesome).
