Rethinking Rigor: Challenging Students & Supporting Meaningful Learning

Rethinking Rigor: Challenging Students & Supporting Meaningful Learning

On Wednesday, September 25, we hosted Dr. Kevin Gannon to discuss how instructors can provide a supportive yet challenging learning environment that promotes meaningful learning for students.

“Dysfunctional Illusions” About Rigor

The term “rigor” has become a loaded word in academia and is often misunderstood, explained Dr. Kevin Gannon in his opening remarks. Some instructors still hold “dysfunctional illusions” about rigor, borrowing the term from biologist Craig Nelson (2010) to describe long-held misconceptions about teaching and learning in higher education. These include beliefs that:

  1. “Hard courses” weed out the weak students”, i.e., when a student fails out of a rigorous course it is always due to some deficiency of the student
  2. If too many students are getting A’s, then it must mean that the curriculum has been “dumbed down” or is insufficiently rigorous
  3. Traditional modes of instruction, like teacher-centric lecturing, are effective pedagogy, and active learning techniques “pamper” students (despite evidence that such approaches improve learning, particularly in STEM (Freeman et al., 2014b).)
  4. Students must always adhere to the pace set by the instructor for assignments and assessments (Nelson, 2010).

Gannon explained that the concept of rigor can have different meanings to different people. Some emphasize academic demands such as workload—the pace at which content is covered, how much reading is required, the number and length of papers and assessments given, or the status of the instructor–the level of their degree or research portfolio. Others define rigor by the depth of questions posed to students and/or the amount of critical thinking required (Wyse & Soneral, 2018).

The Challenges of Rigor

Gannon prefers to think in terms of how instructors can genuinely challenge their students. He contends that there are two manners in which a course can embody challenge–”cognitive” and “logistical.” Faculty, Gannon argues, often view rigor as consisting of cognitive challenges: the levels at which students engage with the content, in other words, the “platonic ideal” of what a rigorous course should be.

However, when biology students were surveyed about their perceptions of an academically rigorous course, they were more likely to identify stressors not necessarily related to engagement with the content, such as fast pacing, high workloads, time demands outside of regular class hours, and inflexibility with attendance or late work (Draeger et al., 2015). These aspects of a course cited by students more often represent logistical challenges and not the intellectual expectations of the course, resulting in a disconnect between the way instructors perceive academic rigor and how students actually experience it.

“How hard is it to get an A?”

Gannon presented findings from Draeger et al. (2015) that illustrate the difference between faculty and student perceptions of academic rigor. The most frequent response students gave when asked what makes a course rigorous was “How hard is it to get an A?” When faculty were interviewed, they rarely mentioned grades. (Mahler et al., 2014)

The survey asked students to sort the NSSE1 items into one of three categories – essential indicators of academic rigor, moderately important, and less important to academic rigor. Note that students ranked logistical challenges (in bold) as “essential” for rigor more often than cognitive challenges.

Adapted from: Table 1 Academic Rigor Indicators Ranked Highest to Lowest in Student Survey Sample. (Draeger et al., 2015).

Students Rated Survey Items as Signs of Academic Rigor in a Course

Percent of Survey Sample Rating Item as Indicative of a Very Rigorous Course* 
The number of 20 page papers that I am assigned shows that a course is 75
Finding out from a majority of students that they had to work hard to meet instructor standards shows that the course is… 57
The amount of reading that I am assigned shows that a course is… 47
The number of hours a week I spend preparing for class shows the course is… 42
The number of papers assigned between 5 and 19 pages shows that a course is… 39
If a course instructor expects students to synthesize and organize ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations then a course is… 38
If a course instructor expects students to apply theories or concepts to practical problems or new situations then a course is… 28
If a course instructor expects students to make judgments about the value of information, arguments, and methods then a course is… 21
If a course instructor expects students to analyze basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory then a course is… 11
  *Valid percentages arranged highest to lowest
  1. In 1998, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was created to measure, among other things, the level of academic challenge (Kuh 2009) as students perceive it. ↩︎

In light of this disconnect, how can instructors reframe their beliefs about academic rigor? Gannon encourages educators to reflect on their assumptions about rigor and to create challenging yet supportive learning environments that foster growth without imposing unnecessary barriers to student success.

Things That Advance Student Learning

Gannon argued that if the logistical challenges traditionally associated with rigor get in the way of accomplishing the cognitive challenges required to be successful in the course, the onus is on the instructor to adapt, not the student. Educators are responsible for removing barriers to learning, not creating them. Therefore, Gannon suggested that the key consideration for instructors when developing course curricula is to ask themselves, “Does this advance student learning?”

Gannon presented three “things” that advance student learning:

  • Trust. Learning is inherently social. Consequently, the student’s relationship with their instructor will affect how they engage with the course. When students have trusting relationships with their instructors, they are “.. better able to take advantage of critical feedback and other opportunities” to advance learning (Walton & Cohen, 2007).
  • Transparency. When instructors are transparent about how a particular course assignment relates to the course’s learning outcomes or concepts, their learning is advanced (Winklemes et al., 2016).
  • Compassionate challenge. When students are provided with what Sarah Rose Cavanagh (2023) calls “compassionate challenge”– a safe learning environment where students feel a sense of belonging, engage in practices associated with confronting fears, and take intellectual risks in meaningful ways–it advances learning.

Risk with Less Fear

Gannon concluded by comparing the risk that pole vaulters face when competing in track and field to the risks students take when attempting to meet demanding levels of challenge. No pole vaulter would attempt a jump if there were no cushions to land on. Similarly, “compassionate challenge” provides the cushion for students to take risks and ultimately increase their depth of understanding without fear of severe consequences. A supportive learning environment based on trust and transparency does not diminish academic rigor. Instead, it creates the conditions whereby students are willing to take risks that promote growth and build resilience in academic settings that result in meaningful learning.

Resources

References

Cavanagh, S. R. (2023). Mind over Monsters: Supporting Youth Mental Health with Compassionate Challenge. Beacon Press.

Draeger, J., Del Prado Hill, P., & Mahler, R. (2015). Developing a student conception of academic rigor. Innovative Higher Education, 40(3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9308-1 

Mahler, R.E. & Draeger, John & Hill, P.. (2014). Comparing faculty and student conceptions of academic rigor. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Studies. 8. 31-41.

Nelson, C. E. (2010). 10: Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor. To Improve the Academy, 28(1), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2010.tb00602.x

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

Wyse, S. A., & Soneral, P. a. G. (2018). “Is This Class Hard?” Defining and Analyzing Academic Rigor from a Learner’s Perspective. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar59. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0278

Additional references cited in presentation

Braxton J. M. (1993). Selectivity and rigor in research universities. Journal of Higher Education, (6), 657–675.

Clinebell S. K., Clinebell J. M. (2008). The tension in business education between academic rigor and real-world relevance: The role of executive professors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, (1), 99–107.

Graham, C., & Essex, C. (2001, November 8-12). Defining and Ensuring Academic Rigor in Online and On-Campus Courses: Instructor Perspectives. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470163.pdf

Kuh, G. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practice. Change, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090

Pike, D. L. (2011). The Tyranny of Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning: Midwest Sociological Society Presidential Address 2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01195.x

Taylor M. T., Rendon L. I. (1991). The American history curriculum in North Carolina’s public community colleges and universities: A comparative study. Community College Review, (1), 36–41.

Winston R. B., Vahala M. E., Nichols E. C., Gillis M. E., Wintrow M., Rome K. D. (1994). A measure of college classroom climate: The college classroom environment scales. Journal of College Student Development, (1), 11–18

Wyatt G. (2005). Satisfaction, academic rigor and interaction: Perceptions of online instruction. Education, (3), 460–468. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ698827