The best teaching strategy meets students where they are, even if that is AI

My teaching style varies with student need, trying to meet individuals where they are and appreciating the barriers they may face.

Putting it perhaps too coarsely, I will have a rough impression of a student as either “capable” or “not capable”, cautiously using these words as a catch-all for knowledge, skills, and personal engagement with the course materials. At the same time, students have their own views on whether they are or are not “capable.” Teaching is an ongoing conversation that informs and clarifies these perceptions, and on my behalf also involves adopting an appropriate style for each of the four possible situations in this rubric.

The Professor as “colleague” is certainly a comfortable strategy for students who I think of as capable and who also have the confidence to feel that they indeed are capable. My role is to cheer them on, offer challenges so that they strive and excel, and invite them into a collegial relationship, almost as co-teacher, so that their talents are also used for the benefit of the group.

The Professor as “parent” is not as comfortable, but still manageable for students who I do not feel as capable and who also feel they are not. My role is one of support, and to avoid situations that may threaten self-esteem. This scenario often arises because of barriers outside of the class. Trust and sensitive communication are necessary. The professor as parent helps the student to recognize these barriers and points toward resources outside of the classroom that may offer additional and more effective support.

The Professor as “coach” and the professor as “police officer” are the situations I have sometimes found most challenging. Students who I am confident are capable, indeed sometimes very capable, but see themselves otherwise need both to be challenged and supported. My role as coach is to offer opportunitities for many little victories, and steady communication to foster self-awareness. Success in this scenario is often the most rewarding teaching experience.

But the Professor as “police officer” can be just the opposite. Students who are not capable but think they are implies that I may have entirely misread the situation, need clearer communication, and be open to readjusting. But if I have not and these students cannot readjust in the face of feedback, then this situation has the risk of turning very sour. Early and continual communication about expectations and results is necessary, and so is careful documentation.

No one relishes “Professor as police officer”, but ironically there is a tendency to double down in this way, laying out rules to be followed and policed, course outlines that have the air of contracts rather than instruments of learning, and incentives and penalties that foster extrinsic rather than intrinsic learning. A helpful workshop organized by the Teaching and Learning Center of my University on how AI will change teaching raised my awareness of countless syllabi statements of these sorts.

My own view is that AI will likely ask me to double down as Professor as coach, and to explicitly develop trust that promotes core academic values: honesty and integrity; and curiosity and intrinsic motivation. This will require placing more emphasis on what happens in the classroom, on early and repeated feedback, and on evaluations that become pedagogic tools and that increasingly have an oral component.