So I've finally read through all the in-house evaluations from last semester that I enticed students to complete. The enticement meant that I got three to four times as many evaluations as I normally do, which means I likely got a more representative sample. The comments suggest that structure (or lack thereof) is both the biggest strength and biggest weakness of the current version of Collo.
It was a little surprising that the deliberately unstructured nature of the course was highlighted as a weakness, but it also reminded me of one of the best (and maybe only) pieces of advice I ever received about teaching--your students aren't like you. I've been thinking about that and my own experiences as a student in an effort to better see my own biases. So this is me as a student, part one.
High school English, junior year, Dr. Von Tiesenhausen. During the first week of class, we were "taught" that every paragraph has five sentences, and our assignment was to write a paragraph that fit the structure of the model paragraph. We read these aloud in class. I wrote a three sentence paragraph about it not being true that all paragraphs had five sentences. I think it was a beautifully written paragraph. VT was not amused. I failed the assignment and he told me that 11th grade was not a good time to drop out of school. I actually agreed with this, so I dropped out of his class.
To say he was structured would be a massive understatement. Clearly I did not handle the imposition of his structure in the most constructive way, but I think the situation foreshadows my general attitude towards imposing strict guidelines on students. If I were a student, I would really like the unstructured nature of Collo and appreciate that nobody was telling me exactly what I had to do and how I had to do it. The course is not for me, though, and in looking back on my own experiences, I think I have a pretty strong reaction to structure that likely places me on the far end of the bell curve. This inclines me to think that I need to redesign the course in a way that is at least moderately at odds with how my 18-22 year old self might prefer it.
At the time, I think I was just being an obnoxious 16 year old kid. In hindsight, I like to think the more high-minded explanation is that VT was prioritizing structure over competency. If he had cared more about whether I was writing well and less about being an ass, some ugliness could have been avoided. I don't ever want the structure of the course or of an assignment to be elevated above the objective of the assignment. But there is a huge gulf between that kind of reverence for rules and a more or less complete laissez faire attitude. I think I need to work on being better at finding that middle ground.
