As the world around us continues to shift, it is increasingly clear that our roles and activities as educators are also forever changed. Since we re-entered our classrooms this year, we’ve gained experience and understanding of just how different things are now. In fact, some of the strategies and techniques we prioritized before the pandemic aren’t as well suited now. As we realize that re-establishing our practices might not be as straightforward as we’d hoped, we may be finding it necessary to re-evaluate our tools and strategies, and even redefine some core elements of our teaching and learning philosophies and practices.
Inspired by recent publications from educators like you, this blog series will explore topics reflecting these ongoing paradigm shifts in our modern classroom. Through these “Candid Conversations,” we’ll examine current pedagogical priorities as we wrestle with upholding the standards and strategies of the past.
Redefining Rigor
Rigor is one of the most used terms from the lexicon of higher education. Most of us have probably experienced numerous definitions of “rigor” in our lives, as students, instructors, or both. Given this term’s diversity in use and application in academia and elsewhere, we are called to re-evaluate what rigor means for us now.
Reflecting upon our own instructional experiences surrounding academic rigor is a great place to start. Consider what rigor means to you, what you’d like it to mean for your students, and how that might be effectively produced, maintained, and measured. Don’t worry, though, if, after some reflection, this still feels nebulous: you aren’t alone.
Cohan (2021) suggests that a lack of boundaries and pressure to universally accommodate student requests for special treatment precludes authentic academic rigor to the detriment of both instructors and students. Cohan states that our conversations on this topic are “irreparably skewed by the current ‘absolutist narrative’…[where] a person is a complete monster if their students have failed this past academic year”. He continues to argue, just as before the COVID-19 pandemic, the bulk of student questions and “confusion” actually reflect under-preparedness, inactivity, and are “frequently code for I haven’t read the syllabus or the assignment”. Cohan also argues that holding students accountable for such pre-established standards should not be something that we, the faculty, are willing to compromise. “…the fact is that some students may fail — yes, even in a pandemic — yet that doesn’t make the instructor a bad educator.”
Duffy (2021) passionately disagrees, interpreting Cohan’s version of rigor to be “a willingness to give failing grades and not [answer] students’ questions if they can or should be finding the answers for themselves,” regardless of individual or global circumstances. Duffy continues, “it’s disingenuous to pretend [attendance policies or work expectations] uphold some abstract measure of rigor,” and goes as far as to say that “[these] supposedly objective performance standards at best get in the way of learning and at worst make it impossible.”
Both Duffy and Cohan offer genuine (and personally familiar) examples, representing each side of this polarizing conversation. Despite neither argument making academics look very good, what is reassuring and inspiring is that both advocate for the prioritization of learning and unity.
Anton (2021) makes this distinction quite clear, “Do better by yourself and do better by your students. The rigor police aren’t better educators, just better rule-makers”. Bringing both sides of this debate closer together, Anton implores us: why not rigor and compassion; can “both [not] exist simultaneously”? The answer is yes, they can, and they should.
Taking away what we can from these discussions, two things are clear. We must not allow our commitment to rigor cause us to lose sight of why we are here, which is to not interfere with our call to educate or supersede our mission to support and empower our students. Nor should we feel the need to compromise our dedication to authentic academic rigor for any reason, from our teaching modality to individual student accommodations and circumstances.
The Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support is always here to help with any step in this process. If you are rigorously stumped, unsure where to go from here, or have any other instructional questions or needs, email us to schedule a consultation.
References:
- Anton, A.M. (2021) I’m the Compassion Police. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/08/31/im-compassion-police-letter
- Cohan, D.J. (2021) Upholding Rigor at Pandemic U. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/25/professors-should-uphold-rigor-when-assessing-students-even-pandemic-opinion
- Duffy, W. (2021) Rigor Is BS. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/09/22/striving-rigor-teaching-questionable-opinion
1 thought on “Candid Conversations abo …”