Three faculty scholars argue that course design requires intentionality beyond administrative compliance. Annette Miles, Helen Krauthamer, and Uzma Amir contend that designing learning experiences often reduces to workflow tasks: migrating content online, completing accessibility checklists, or mapping learning outcomes to grading rubrics.
This transactional approach misses the relational core of teaching, they argue. Course design functions as pedagogy itself. When instructors treat syllabus development, assignment sequencing, and learning environment architecture as mechanical processes, they forfeit opportunities to build community, respond to student needs, and embed care into the learning experience.
The scholars' framing rejects the efficiency-first model that dominates higher education. Moving content to a learning management system does not equal thoughtful course design. Checking accessibility compliance boxes without considering how disabled students actually navigate the course content falls short. Alignment exercises that map outcomes to rubrics can become exercises in bureaucratic documentation rather than genuine student development.
The authors propose design as relational practice instead. This means faculty consider who their students are, what barriers they face, how they learn differently, and what support structures enable their success. It means designing assignments that matter to students, not just satisfy institutional accountability measures. It means building feedback loops that respond to actual student experience rather than predicted outcomes.
This perspective challenges the time-crunch reality many faculty face. Designing with care requires reflection, iteration, and intentional decision-making. Universities often treat course design as a one-time preparation task rather than an ongoing practice. Professional development in course design emphasizes tools and templates rather than philosophical frameworks rooted in student welfare.
The Faculty Focus article centers voices often excluded from higher education policy conversations. Faculty themselves articulate that teaching excellence demands treating design as thoughtful, relational work. Their contribution suggests that course quality improves not when institutions mandate more compliance requirements, but when they grant faculty