Exploring Education Models and Professor Sharmin’s Approach

Irmak Aytekin's avatar

written and conducted by

Irmak Aytekin

The edited audio of the interview could be found below.

Exploring Education Models and Professor Sharmin’s Approach

In educational circles, one of the most debated questions is how much autonomy to grant students without compromising the rigor and structure that traditional schooling demands. Numerous innovative models—such as ungrading, mastery-based learning, and project-based approaches—seek to help learners become more self-directed, flexible thinkers. Yet these frameworks face challenges when scaled to large classes or implemented in institutions with strict standards. Professor Sharmin, an experienced educator in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Toronto, is experimenting with these ideals. In her words, it is about “incorporating flexible deadlines to my course within limits … more open-ended exercises and assignments.” Balancing the excitement and creativity of true autonomy against logistical and institutional realities is at the heart of her teaching philosophy.

The Promise of Open-Ended Learning

Before delving into large-scale constraints, it’s important to recognize why open-ended learning is so compelling. Students often become more invested in projects that encourage exploration, choice, and self-expression. Professor Sharmin describes a game-design project in which first-year students “got together and were excited to build something.” That sense of ownership fuels motivation and a genuine desire to learn.

This approach aligns with the broader literature on student-centered learning. For instance, project-based learning (Larmer & Mergendoller, 2015) shows that when students have meaningful projects, they develop deeper understanding and longer-lasting retention of material. By allowing for creativity and self-direction, educators tap into what educational psychologists term “intrinsic motivation” (Deci & Ryan, 2008). As Professor Sharmin notes, “Little steps, but I hope it’s something,” suggesting that even modest degrees of freedom can have a significant impact on learners.

Alternative Grading: Promise and Pitfalls

One route educators have taken to foster intrinsic motivation is ungrading—eliminating or radically rethinking grading practices to focus on feedback and growth. According to Blum (2020), ungrading encourages students to take risks and learn from mistakes, rather than chasing numerical scores. Yet Professor Sharmin acknowledges it’s “hard to apply those things at a large scale,” particularly when teaching 300 to 500 students and working within a university system that still relies heavily on grades.

A balance between standardization and flexibility must be struck. Mastery-based learning (Bloom, 1968) and self-paced models can help students fill knowledge gaps before progressing, but they require more one-on-one interaction. “If a student does not know week one material, they’re going to fall behind in week two, three, and so on,” says Professor Sharmin. For smaller groups or younger learners, deferring exams or offering unlimited retakes may work well, but coordinating that in a massive lecture hall environment can be extremely difficult.

The Challenge of Scale

Professor Sharmin highlights “the scale is what causes the limitations to be necessary.” Large universities, especially research-intensive ones, face logistical barriers in giving each student individualized guidance or flexible deadlines. As she explains, “I can’t change the schedule for the exam … some courses do that, but I feel like with something like our CS courses … each topic builds on one another.”

Small class sizes—whether by design or by chance—appear to boost engagement and foster deeper discussions. Students participating in smaller workshops, labs, or tutorials often feel more comfortable asking questions. Research by Tinto (1993) underscores that strong social and academic integration within smaller cohorts can positively influence student retention and success. However, replicating this intimate environment for large, first-year lecture courses is a formidable challenge.

First-Year Foundations vs. Advanced Autonomy

Professor Sharmin sees a clear difference between first-year and upper-year students in terms of autonomy and needs. In first-year courses, she focuses on “time management, learning strategies, and frequent feedback,” acknowledging that newcomers often benefit from structured checkpoints like weekly quizzes. They help keep students on pace while still offering short windows of flexibility.

By fourth year, however, learning often shifts to a more “consulting” role, as students undertake individual or team projects. They have a stronger foundation and can handle broader freedoms. In this sense, scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978) is key—guiding less experienced students with partial support, then gradually removing that support as they gain confidence and competence.

Walking the Tightrope: The Middle Ground

Both in the research and in Professor Sharmin’s own practice, true educational innovation relies on striking a balance:

Though Professor Sharmin concedes there is no perfect solution for the challenges of large-scale courses, she remains committed to iterative improvements. By introducing “training wheels” of starter code or limiting flexible deadlines to one week, she helps first-year students manage open-ended projects without feeling overwhelmed. Meanwhile, her experiences affirm that providing any measure of autonomy can transform how students perceive—and engage with—learning.

Conclusion

Education, as Professor Sharmin emphasizes, is part of a larger system that cannot be dismantled and rebuilt overnight. Yet even within tight confines, thoughtful educators can move away from a purely top-down model, offering spaces for creativity and choice. Whether through carefully managed flexibility, alternative grading elements, or small-group discussions, instructors can preserve the rigor of traditional academics while nurturing the self-directed mindset vital for success in and beyond university.

Ultimately, the debate over “too much” or “too little” autonomy underscores the importance of context. What works for a small, progressive elementary school might not translate seamlessly to a 500-student lecture. But with incremental adaptations—“little steps,” as Professor Sharmin puts it—higher education can move toward a more flexible, student-centered future that honors both individual growth and institutional expectations.

References