Faculty and students are not on the same page about what makes a course rigorous. Draeger, del Prado Hill, and Mahler (2015) find that “faculty perceived learning to be most rigorous when students are actively learning meaningful content with higher-order thinking at the appropriate level of expectation within a given context” (216). Interactive, collaborative, engaging, synthesizing, interpreting, predicting, and increasing levels of challenge are phrases faculty use to describe rigor. In contrast, “academic rigor” is an uncommon expression among students. They describe challenging or “hard” courses “in terms of workload, grading standards, level of difficulty, level of interest, and perceived relevance to future goals” (215). Course quality is “a function of their ability to meet reasonable faculty expectations rather than as a function of mastery of learning outcomes” (216). Effectively managing these conflicting views requires combined effort by faculty and administration.
Academic leaders can attend to this disconnect by gathering program or institution-wide data from students on the front end of the academic process. This kind of data allows teachers and administrators to gain valuable insights about students’ perspectives and expectations about learning. Because learning maturation occurs over time, a sense of first-year students’ understanding and potential misperceptions about learning provide a critical lens from which introductory and general education course evaluations should be filtered. Subsequent surveying of advanced standing students can shed light on how beliefs about and attitudes toward learning and academic effort have changed, and hopefully matured, as students enter and advance through academic programs.
Addressing issues related to rigor more directly, a survey by Lizzio, Wilson, and Simons (2002) emphasized students’ perceptions of workload. They asked the following series of qualitative questions:
Conversations among academic leaders, faculty, and students about rigor and learning are more likely to adjust student expectations to a more realistic level than efforts by faculty alone. Sanders et al. (2000) explain:
Sometimes expectations and preferences might be responded to by moving to meet the students’ expectations or preferences. Other expectations or preferences that the students might have could well be unrealistic. In such cases, it would be more appropriate to sensitively manage these expectations or preferences to more appropriate levels. In either event, the student has been listened to and responded to, which is, in our view, the real purpose of accessing student expectations and preferences in the first place. (322)
Gathering this kind of data also supports faculty development. Academic leaders and faculty will have more insight about the comments and feedback armed with data on student perspectives on workload and learning. Viewing course evaluations through the lens of student perceptions about learning and rigor shows faculty that the value of course evaluations goes beyond a few summary ratings. The final benefit is programmatic. Information about student expectations and perceptions about the program’s difficulty, learning, and instruction can be beneficial in the design and delivery of modules and courses (Sander et al. 2000).
If teachers, administrators, and students hold different definitions and expectations about rigor and learning, the academic process falls short of its potential. The purpose is not to water down courses, make grading easier, lower expectations, or reduce standards; the goal is to manage expectations at the start of the academic process, thereby improving learning and retention and more accurately interpreting course evaluations through shared and more closely aligned conceptions of rigor.
Draeger, J., del Prado Hill, P., Mahler, R. “Developing a Student Concept of Academic Rigor.” Innovation in Higher Education 40 (2015): 215–228.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., Simons, R. “University Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for Theory and Practice.” Studies in Higher Education 27, no. 1 (2002): 27–52.
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., and Coates, D. “University Students’ Expectations of Teaching.” Studies in Higher Education 25, no. 3 (2000): 309–323.
Lolita A. Paff, PhD is associate professor of business and economics at Penn State Berks. Her pedagogical scholarship and faculty development work focus on classroom and online interaction, student engagement, and active learning.
This article first appeared in the September 2017 issue of Academic Leader. © Magna Publications. All rights reserved.