Course planning is a central act in higher education teaching. Typically completed before the course even starts, instructors are expected to make key decisions related to the student experience in the course prior to knowing their students and what their needs and interests are. Planning opportunities for including student voice in deciding what they will learn, how they will demonstrate their understanding, and on what basis they will be evaluated returns some power to the students. This act, however, reveals central tensions related to the structure of higher education and the inherent power assigned to instructors, universities, and accrediting bodies. Cervero and Wilson (2006) posit that power relations, ethical commitments, and interests are always present in the planning process whether or not they are explicitly stated and negotiated. I argue that revealing and attending to these considerations is foundational to any effort to support individual needs of students, as called for by UDL. This case study is not prescriptive. In fact, it will generate more questions than answers. It is in grappling with these questions that we open ourselves up to new possibilities for rethinking practice.
Description of My Practice
My course, Systems Thinking in Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources Educational Contexts, was brand new with no known models in our applied disciplinary context. The course met a need for my department because many areas of research and praxis are grounded in systems thinking and complex systems ideas. It was taught at the graduate level (MS and PhD combined) and I had eight students with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and research interests. I set topics for the first part of the course then, inspired by a workshop I attended, I planned to structure the second 2/3 of my course around conducting a research project. I intended to set up research teams of students to investigate how systems thinking was being addressed in courses across campus. Students conducted an initial literature review assignment on a topic of their choice that was intended to drive the direction of this research project. Through discussions with the class following presentations on this assignment, it became clear that this was not the direction that the students felt they needed to go. They wanted to learn more about their topics and how to apply them in practice. In response to this, I switched gears and we held a series of discussions as a group to determine what they wanted to accomplish in the course both individually and collectively. In the end, we democratically negotiated the remaining course topics and expectations for the final project.
At the end of the course, students reported that they felt they had autonomy in the learning process, appreciated the variety of student perspectives that contributed to the course direction, and experienced being involved in decision making. Some students suggested that an “advanced organizer or heuristic to help understand the journey we were undertaking” would be helpful, highlighting a key tension that arose in this effort. Additionally, one student noted that “the instructor was a facilitator but also felt a part of the learning process;” this echoes my own reflections on how I felt during the course. Putting more control in the hands of the students allowed me to see the topic from a fresh perspective and kept me engaged in a new way. Enacting UDL through optimizing individual choice and providing multiple means of action and expression for my students enriched their learning and my experience as an instructor.
In the following sections, I describe the dimensions of the “planning table,” reflect on how each came to bear in my course, share ideas for strategies that can be used in practice, and reveal tensions and new perspectives that may play a role in sharing power with students. The intent is not to be exhaustive in describing the strategies, rather to generate new ideas for you to explore further. Finally, I end with an opportunity for you to reflect on your own practice and define next steps for yourself.
Power Relations
Power relations influence who is involved in the particular planning situation and shape an individual’s “capacity to act” (Cervero & Wilson, 2006, p. 85). Some individuals may have more power due to structural positions, however, decisions about how they exercise that power are made in context and as a result of negotiations.
My course: As the instructor, I inherently held the power in planning my course. I had the benefit of teaching a new stand-alone course and I didn’t have to consider external factors (such as meeting standards for accreditation) in planning. I held all of the decision-making power, so it was mine to give to my students. My decision to take a collaborative planning approach to the re-design of the course was a deliberate decision to share some of that power with my students.
| Strategies for sharing power | Tensions in giving students power |
|---|---|
|
|
Interests
Individuals bring their own interests (and the interests of others) to the planning table; these interests are related to educational, social, and political outcomes.
My course: At the graduate level in particular, students bring previous experience and expertise to the course and coursework is intimately tied to the student’s own research and scholarly interests. It was important to me that these were considered as I planned the course, which was my reasoning for letting them choose topics for the literature review topics. Their interests came to bear even more in the re-design as this was the primary driver for changing direction. This experience served as an important point of reflection in terms of my interests in the research study versus the students interests in connecting the course to their current and future work.
| Strategies for better representing the interests of students | Ways the interests of teachers and students might be in conflict |
|---|---|
|
|
Ethical Commitments
Ethical commitments are enacted when decisions are made about desired outcomes and who should be at the planning table.
My course: I was disappointed to not be able to carry out the research project as planned because it would have helped move my own research agenda forward. Through allowing the course to change directions, however, I enacted my ethical commitment to bringing my students to the planning table.
| Strategies to better align our ethical commitments to students with our planning practices | Potential new ways to think about ethical commitments in course planning |
|---|---|
|
|
Negotiation
Negotiation is the central practical action in program planning and is the arena in which power and interests are asserted.
My course: As we moved forward together in re-designing the course, negotiating the interests of myself and the diverse group of students became very important. Additionally, while I wanted students to have power in the planning process, ultimately, I was required to give them a course grade. In navigating this collaborative decision-making process, I developed some structures that allowed for us to do this effectively.
First, we used the literature review presentations as a starting point. Students completed a homework assignment with guiding reflection questions. We then used a snowball technique in class (sharing in pairs, then groups of 4, then the whole class) to synthesize ideas while ensuring that all voices were included. I then led a whole class discussion using the ideas generated from the snowball exercise to determine next steps for the remainder of the course. The questions posed to the students were:
- Given everything you’ve learned from class readings, your work, and what was shared in class, what is your most pressing question about systems thinking at this point?
- What do you think would be the best course of action to address your question?
- What else would you like to know by the end of the semester?
- Is there something you would like to produce by the end of the semester?
With my small class, I was also able to give significant individual attention to their final projects. Following the group discussion, I developed a final project proposal process. Students generated initial ideas, met with me individually, developed a written proposal that included criteria on which they wanted to be evaluated, and revised the proposal based on my feedback (as needed).
Final Project Proposal
Due at 5 pm on November 1st, 2017
5 points
As we discussed in class, many of you were interested in developing a case study of a real-life social system. I am open to other ideas you may have had since then as well, so you are not limited to this format. I hope that you will use this opportunity to explore something you are interested in. The goal of this proposal assignment is for you to articulate your ideas for your project to me so that we both know where you are going with it and I can give you formative feedback to guide you moving forward.
Please include the following using the headers provided:
Driving question and context
Explain the question or questions that will direct your inquiry and the particular topic you will engage with or context in which this inquiry will be situated.
Project plan
Provide a detailed outline of what it is you want to accomplish. This should include a description of the format and content of the finished products you plan to produce. You should also describe the intended audience for your products. In other words, who (besides you) might use it?
Relevance to the course
Briefly describe how your project is relevant to this course. You should explain how it fits into the broad field of systems thinking and, more specifically, what concepts or tools you intend to employ in your project.
Criteria for success
Please describe your goals for the finished product and how you want to be graded for this assignment. This should include specific criteria for a successful product related to content, scope, writing, etc. The final submission is worth 30 points, so you should articulate how you want those points to be distributed. I know this is probably new for many of you, but try your best and I will let you know if you are way off.
I then graded their final projects using the student-generated criteria. This allowed me to assess their work and assign a grade while retaining student voice in defining the expectations. I have since used this technique in other courses and have been impressed with the creativity that students come up with in how they want to deepen their learning and demonstrate their understanding.
| Strategies for negotiating conflicting interests in course planning | Potential challenges/tensions in negotiating student and teacher interests and power relations |
|---|---|
|
|
What Are Your Next Steps?
Take a moment to jot down some new ideas and reflections on your own course planning process that were generated while reviewing this module. If it is helpful, consider specific actions you can take in the areas of assignments, course policies, course content, and student evaluation.
- Thinking about your practice, how will you bring students to the planning table in your course?
- What are some areas of tension that you want to engage with?
- What are some strategies you want to learn more about?
Learn More
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
References & Resources
Bengtson, C., Ahlkvist, M., Ekeroth, W., Nilsen-Moe, A., Vedin, N. P., Rodiuchkina, K., . . . Lundberg, M. (2017). Working as partners: Course development by a student—teacher team. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2).
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Working the planning table: negotiating democratically for adult, continuing, and workplace education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Colin, S. A. J., III, & Heaney, T. W. (2001). Negotiating the democratic classroom. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2001(91), 29-37.
Enright, E., Coll, L., Chróinín, D. N., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2017). Student voice as risky praxis: democratising physical education teacher education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 459-472. doi:10.1080/17408989.2016.1225031
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
About the Author
Hannah H. Scherer
Hannah H. Scherer is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education at Virginia Tech.
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of participants in my Practice Session at the 2020 Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy on February 6, 2020. The majority of the ideas for strategies and tensions presented here were generated collaboratively by that group. Had I known I was going to write this case study at the time, I would have collected your names!