I came across a piece today, that I cannot now find, but which said that large classes are good for working class students because they have to be taught in lock-step, which works better for these students. Middle class students, on the other hand, are those who shine with liberal teaching methods.
Do you think this could be true?
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
I think it’s true that many working class students are used to working under close supervision and with precise guidelines, but it also bears the danger of becoming a determinist claim. In my experience middle-class students often want me to be more authoritarian and are reluctant to really think. My aim is to use methods that are as liberal as possible in both cases so that students learn to take charge of their learning and develop creativity and self-trust.
Oh, good. Because my students and the instructors all say we need to be more authoritarian. I don’t mind raising standards and being more militaristic about deadlines, if it is practical. But I want to keep on keeping on with liberal methods for the same reason as you. 🙂
I am learning to enforce a clear structure since it seems to be the only thing that will make students respect me (this ideology involves both students and teachers, indeed it seems to be the stuff of the institution). But, like you, I don’t want teaching to conform to authoritarian views. I believe that students can learn to enjoy more freedom and independence.
That’s a great point. Enforcing a clear structure, yes. I believe in this and I come from it, and part of my confusion is (a) my first job, at a really elite place, where they wanted no structure, and (b) this job, where any structure I can imagine presupposes far too much background and maturity on the part of the students, so that it works better to fly blind since that enables one at least to meet them where they are. But enforce a clear structure, yes. It is the answer and I will follow you on this.