This sounds great, but I don't think the system that I'm accountable gives me the grace that would allow me to dedicate the time necessary to meet 50+ students on a weekly basis (not without giving up all possibility to write during semesters). The only possible way that I could imagine doing so is if class time were dedicated to it, but if AI tools makes so that I cannot trust many students to do any real learning outside of the classroom (no matter how much I try to be a friendly mentor). It feels like I'm just setting myself up for frustration. As much as I like the vision laid out here, and agree that a more personal touch could have an impact, it also feels naive with respect to the scale of the problem.
Thanks, Taylor. I hear you. I think part of the solution here needs to be a way to leverage peer learning through student teaching assistants. I think back to my own experience in the Supplemental Instruction program at my undergrad institution and how valuable that was for me, not only as a student attending other SI sessions for the classes I was taking, but also for me as a budding future educator myself. I think we need to have a much more robust conversation about how we can help to revive and support these sorts of programs on campus and create a much more accessible and human support system for students, especially as the temptation to only interact with AI in learning grows ever more powerful.
I also think that we need to talk more about how we could build a culture where we *could* trust students and teach them to trust themselves. When it's working well, this is the kind of culture that an Honor Code like the one at Harvey Mudd helps to foster.
Thank you for the post - long-time reader and I really appreciate your perspective. Absolutely agree that relationship & trust between faculty and students is key. I don't want my pedagogical approach to focus on a mistrust of student work. That said, I do see a lot of value in in-class writing, oral exams, etc. - I think, honestly, they are better tools than online versions. Handwritten assignments slow my students down and help them to think more deeply about what they want to say. I try to strike a balance between in-class and take home work, weight take home stuff less than before, but I do want to keep take-home as an option because thinking/working outside of the class is where a lot of learning happens. But assessing learning in-person I think is the way to go given the state of technology. Yes, I know that means I don't trust my students not to make use of tools when they are assessed outside of class but at some level I don't fault them for it. I just want to have more confidence that an assessment of learning means I've assessed what they've learned.
Thanks, Alison. I appreciate the comment. I tried my best to thread the needle with some nuance. I hear you on the value of the in-class assessment, and I want to be clear that I don't think these are de facto bad or unjustifiable. In many cases, I think they are very good ways (perhaps the best ways) to assess student learning.
What I'm trying to push back on here is a certain motivation (or at least an articulated motivation) for the reason for going to these sorts of assessments/in-class assignments. If the case being made is that doing things this way is the best way to assess student learning and to help them be their best selves, then great. But all too often it seems to me that the impetus is rooted less in a hopeful, I'm-in-your-corner rationale and more in distrust that students can or will engage in the work that we are asking them to do.
I think your point here highlights the way that the same pedagogical decision can be motivated by two different ideas and that those ideas are not equally fruitful or well justified.
I love the ideas being laid out here, and philosophically I'm in 100% agreement. But I think, similar to Taylor's comment, I feel some uncertainty in the practical implementation. When I teach my astronomy courses (20-40 students), I feel very capable of creating the type of environment you've outlined here. I can make meaningful and trusting relationships with the students, and can work with care to fan the flames on whatever spark drew them to take an astronomy course in the first place. But when I teach my intro physics courses to 100+ students, I find it incredibly difficult to create that same kind of environment. I find myself able to form meaningful relationships with only a fraction of the students (primarily those that come in to office hours), and for a required intro class there will always be a decent chunk of the students that are only taking the class due to requirements, and would rather not be there at all.
That said, I still fully agree with your thesis as an ideal to strive toward -- The worry of students flocking toward AI for easy answers feels more like a symptom of the broader problem to me (giant class sizes, corporatization of universities). I don't think we're upending those problems any time soon, so I'd love to hear any ideas people have for how to foster the "I get to" mindset in those types of courses.
This sounds great, but I don't think the system that I'm accountable gives me the grace that would allow me to dedicate the time necessary to meet 50+ students on a weekly basis (not without giving up all possibility to write during semesters). The only possible way that I could imagine doing so is if class time were dedicated to it, but if AI tools makes so that I cannot trust many students to do any real learning outside of the classroom (no matter how much I try to be a friendly mentor). It feels like I'm just setting myself up for frustration. As much as I like the vision laid out here, and agree that a more personal touch could have an impact, it also feels naive with respect to the scale of the problem.
Thanks, Taylor. I hear you. I think part of the solution here needs to be a way to leverage peer learning through student teaching assistants. I think back to my own experience in the Supplemental Instruction program at my undergrad institution and how valuable that was for me, not only as a student attending other SI sessions for the classes I was taking, but also for me as a budding future educator myself. I think we need to have a much more robust conversation about how we can help to revive and support these sorts of programs on campus and create a much more accessible and human support system for students, especially as the temptation to only interact with AI in learning grows ever more powerful.
I also think that we need to talk more about how we could build a culture where we *could* trust students and teach them to trust themselves. When it's working well, this is the kind of culture that an Honor Code like the one at Harvey Mudd helps to foster.
Thank you for the post - long-time reader and I really appreciate your perspective. Absolutely agree that relationship & trust between faculty and students is key. I don't want my pedagogical approach to focus on a mistrust of student work. That said, I do see a lot of value in in-class writing, oral exams, etc. - I think, honestly, they are better tools than online versions. Handwritten assignments slow my students down and help them to think more deeply about what they want to say. I try to strike a balance between in-class and take home work, weight take home stuff less than before, but I do want to keep take-home as an option because thinking/working outside of the class is where a lot of learning happens. But assessing learning in-person I think is the way to go given the state of technology. Yes, I know that means I don't trust my students not to make use of tools when they are assessed outside of class but at some level I don't fault them for it. I just want to have more confidence that an assessment of learning means I've assessed what they've learned.
Thanks, Alison. I appreciate the comment. I tried my best to thread the needle with some nuance. I hear you on the value of the in-class assessment, and I want to be clear that I don't think these are de facto bad or unjustifiable. In many cases, I think they are very good ways (perhaps the best ways) to assess student learning.
What I'm trying to push back on here is a certain motivation (or at least an articulated motivation) for the reason for going to these sorts of assessments/in-class assignments. If the case being made is that doing things this way is the best way to assess student learning and to help them be their best selves, then great. But all too often it seems to me that the impetus is rooted less in a hopeful, I'm-in-your-corner rationale and more in distrust that students can or will engage in the work that we are asking them to do.
I think your point here highlights the way that the same pedagogical decision can be motivated by two different ideas and that those ideas are not equally fruitful or well justified.
I love the ideas being laid out here, and philosophically I'm in 100% agreement. But I think, similar to Taylor's comment, I feel some uncertainty in the practical implementation. When I teach my astronomy courses (20-40 students), I feel very capable of creating the type of environment you've outlined here. I can make meaningful and trusting relationships with the students, and can work with care to fan the flames on whatever spark drew them to take an astronomy course in the first place. But when I teach my intro physics courses to 100+ students, I find it incredibly difficult to create that same kind of environment. I find myself able to form meaningful relationships with only a fraction of the students (primarily those that come in to office hours), and for a required intro class there will always be a decent chunk of the students that are only taking the class due to requirements, and would rather not be there at all.
That said, I still fully agree with your thesis as an ideal to strive toward -- The worry of students flocking toward AI for easy answers feels more like a symptom of the broader problem to me (giant class sizes, corporatization of universities). I don't think we're upending those problems any time soon, so I'd love to hear any ideas people have for how to foster the "I get to" mindset in those types of courses.