Just days before the curricular review’s report was released last month, members of the committee that focused on pedagogy were informed that their most innovative suggestion—the creation of a research institute for cutting-edge teaching methods—had been nixed by the review’s Steering Committee.

A month later, members of the Working Group on Pedagogy are still debating what that decision ultimately means for learning at Harvard.

“The idea, we thought, was so good, the potential was so good and people were so excited about it,” said Assistant Senior Tutor of Mather House Aaron Allen, a member of the pedagogy working group.

“It was very surprising that it was cut,” he said.

Allen said the idea came up when the working group struggled to find research to make recommendations on teaching.

“We don’t really have a sense of what kind of pedagogy goes on in the classroom,” Allen said. “In order to fix what students are complaining about we need something to go on.”

He said the institute was designed to resolve these problems by conducting the necessary research.

But Jones Professor of American Studies Lizabeth Cohen, co-chair of working group, said the needed research data exists, and that “what we need to do is get this research funneled to people who can use it.” She also said the recommendation for a research institute would distract Harvard from its goal of improving teaching.

“We didn’t want to turn pedagogy into research and then make it less important than a relationship between teachers and students,” she said. “There is a worry that we would do the Harvard thing and turn what should be about interacting into scholarship.”

Cohen said that enhancing faculty-student relationships was the guiding principle that informed the working group’s discussions.

“From the beginning we determined that at the heart of a Harvard education should be interaction between faculty and students,” she said. “A lot of our efforts went into trying to find ways to enhance that.”

Allen said the pedagogical recommendations that were in the report marked a shift in Harvard’s culture.

“We are a research institute. We want to be a teaching institute as well,” he said.

These recommendations include the implementation of a January term between the fall and spring semesters, increased funding for student research, better use of classroom space, smaller class sizes and the exploration of reducing section size from 18 to 15 students.

The review also calls for course evaluations to occur twice a term—at mid-term and the end of the term—and for those evaluations to be completed online. These evaluations will also allow for faculty to add in course-specific questions.