Enrolment

It would hardly be a new observation to note that not all students want an education. My favourite reference to this being in Confucius where he remarks that some students are like rotten wood: material from which nothing can be made (朽木不可雕).
Lest this sound disparaging, I will point out that constructivist pedagogy puts emphasis on the need of student engagement for the teaching to be effective. Once the classroom is no longer teacher-centric, which some call didactic, responsibility shifts to the students. While it is possible to spark engagement through delivery, it is not always possible to reach recalcitrant students. Some do not wish to put forth the good will for the communication that could take place. It may be true that some instructors just aren't a right match for certain students, but I will posit that overcoming any potential mismatching is actually one of the elements of learning.
There are times when I have put all other work aside in an attempt to repackage my classes in such a way as to maximise the chances of engaging everyone, with varying degrees of success. These days, I am starting to think of ways in which I can continue to repeat the course objectives through the end of the semester - letting the repetition through the changing situations of weekly readings and activities do the work for me. We know that objectives are not meant to by myriad; we also know that they are somewhat broad. This - sadly, or happily, depending on the perspective - will help guarantee that most if not all students will meet them, if only superficially or barely. (So, the question could stand to be asked just how much students have internalised the criteria of the objectives. This depends on how much institutional support there is in implementing criteria.)
By focusing on repetition, one can curtail criticism - which, while called for, is not an effective mechanism. As stated above, I am now interested in gathering a number of ways in which I can repeat the same thing, but in a different way.

Brush via

To this end, I have been visiting types of podcasts I do not normally listen to, and have found the series between Brian Koppelman and Seth Godin (on the former's The Moment) not only charming to listen to because of their friendly relationship but useful. I'll give two illustrations.
In one episode, Seth takes issue with the word quality, pointing out that in much popular definition it means "closeness to specified need or expectation". He lists examples where because of the stipulations of whatever the specified need may be (e.g. low cost) the proximity to our first connotation of "quality" may be very distant indeed.
Going back to class, one could revisit the criteria given to students, and explain them in terms of "specified need", and give students the definition of quality listed above. One could then ask students why, or why not, they consider their work good quality.
The second takeaway from the interviews is Seth's consideration of "enrolment": how one might focus on enrolling only those who are interested in what one is saying rather than being concerned with having any greater reach. His illustration is how, in his bid to leave a trace that would outlast the transience of the internet, he printed a very small run of books containing his collected works: an unwieldy colour edition. With a limited number of books to sell, there was no need to worry about marketing, promotions, book tours, negotiations. And while this example reminds me of why I stopped reading Seth's blog, because it begins to sound like so much "spin", it also reminded me of why I used to read it: such a conceptualisation of audience can be a useful tool. It is a fresh way to approach the "know your audience" conundrum when, say, trying to write a book.
It is fitting that it came up in the context of Koppelman's urging for answers as to how we can be more productive as people and conquer the doubts that can be crippling.
But behind enrolment are the objectives ... and I don't only write that to bring this post full circle. I would describe objectives as goals best aligned with one's strengths. Only certain educationists acknowledge this ( - to borrow from Seth's nomadic nomenclature again - ) "wabi sabi" aspect of teaching. One such educationist with decades of experience noted: two different teachers may end up teaching the exact same course differently.
So this story of enrolment is a story of playing to strengths: not for any form of dominance but merely to share what it is that we can. This in turn suggests creation: to share means that it can be communicated; to be communicated means that it has been conceptualised, and, in a sense, made. Enrolment plays to strengths to bring something into being. 

Brush via