Universities have returned to in-person learning. However, some faculty around the country sense differences relative to Fall, 2019. The intervening months may have changed all of us in ways that seem to affect faculty-student work. So, there is active commentary in academic circles about the changes in the university classroom.
In March, 2020, online instruction became necessary. Pass-fail grading was liberalized. Faculty and students transitioned to “office hours” in one-on-one zoom sessions at all hours of the day. Syllabi were trimmed down. Exercises were altered. Deadlines were softened. Changes were made with the sole intent of continuing the educational mission as best we could. However, all interaction among faculty and students was internet-mediated. Many students experienced their education in isolation. The ease of “turning off your video” permitted disengagement in classes not as easily possible with in-person classes.
This also meant that students experienced world events separated from one another. The online years witnessed the murder of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, then scores of others. Concern about the existential threat of climate change predominated the news. Growing international tensions added to the environment that fosters attention to injustice.
In short, we all returned to an educational mode that duplicates that of 2019, but we are not the same as then.
The last post reviewed some of the tenets of Ignatian pedagogy. In the Ignatian nomenclature, the “context” of our educational enterprise appears to have changed. By its nature, learning challenges current understanding. That’s, as they say, a feature, not a bug in the activity. Ideally, the challenges are managed by a trusted guide (the instructor) who tailors the student’s self-learning of new truths with deep care for the individual. Some faculty report this is more difficult than it was in Fall, 2019.
From the student perspective, with heightened salience of one’s identity and deep devotion to equity, there are new challenges to the need to be open to new ways of thinking. Further, students with recent high school online classes may have missed experiences that teach the value of alternative viewpoints.
For their part, some instructors around the country report heightened student disengagement, complaints about the lack of flexibility, increased objections to course exercises, and appeals about grading protocols. Some zoom behaviors persist within the in-person classroom (e.g., the in-person functional equivalent of turning off the video). Interpersonal skills among students seem atrophied. Misperceptions of intent by speakers in class distract from course learning goals. Open dialogue is strained.
Just as the Great Resignation has produced unprecedented labor market demands for remote work, some students now seek freedom of choice of mode of instructional delivery. While Americans’ trust in institutions continues to decline, students question whether the design of courses serves their needs.
In short, there are challenges in this new learning context. But the small stressors of confronting alternative arguments are a path to resilience. While instructors seek to be a guide to the students intellectual growth, this role requires the students to trust that the instructor has their welfare at heart. Indeed, trust may be a prerequisite to openness to information conflicting with prior understanding. And without openness, there is little curiosity, and curiosity requires a humility that one may not be right.
Learning is inquiry – the self-questioning of former understandings. There is a danger in performing our preferences and not exploring them. Engaging each other more and judging each other less might assist our shared educational enterprise.
Georgetown may have an advantage at adapting to this new learning context. Over the centuries it has built a robust culture of dialogue across differences. It may be time that we mount such a dialogue between faculty and students on these issues.