Now here’s an argument I haven’t heard before: Improving your instruction makes it easier for students to learn. If it’s easier for them to learn, they won’t work as hard in the course, and that means they could learn less. It’s called offsetting behavior and
Most of us think we know what active learning is. The word engagement quickly comes to mind. Or, we describe what it isn’t: passive learning. Definitions also abound. The one proposed by Bonwell and Eison in an early (and now classic) active learning monograph is
I continue to be impressed by the need for teachers to clarify common aspects of instruction instead of assuming that students’ understanding of what they entail are the same as ours. Participation is a good example. How often is it defined in the course syllabus?
As the name implies, self-regulated learning is “self-determined and active efforts to initiate activities targeted towards learning goals, to perform them effectively, to monitor progress and to adapt them if necessary.” (p. 455) Said a bit more simply, it’s learners taking charge of their learning—recognizing
With most instructional practices, it’s all about how they’re implemented. That’s what determines whether they’re right or wrong. Professor Tropman teaches introductory and upper division philosophy courses. She acknowledges that there are arguments against using reading quizzes, but writes, “I have had success using quizzes
Some instructional practices rarely change. Even though the teacher using them may have concerns about the approach, it may feel as though there isn’t any other way. Multiple-choice exams are a good example. Too often they encourage superficial learning, with students memorizing and then forgetting
Teachers everywhere recognize the need to be clear. It’s one of those parts of effective instruction whose importance almost goes without saying. An unclear explanation causes confusion and prevents learning. By the 1970s, there were already more than 50 studies that explored and documented the
The ongoing lecture-active learning debate has generated considerable response in public venues, on social media, and in faculty conversations. These exchanges need to include accurate information as to the instructional methods actually being used in courses. Is lecture as dominant as it once was? How
Policies governing deadlines, missed assignments, makeup quizzes or exams, use of electronic devices, extra credit, and grade calculation are part and parcel of college courses today. Most appear in the syllabus and are discussed when the course begins. Even though a policy may clearly state
A number of faculty are now using Twitter in their classrooms, with positive effects. Here are two examples using different approaches.
Magna Publications © 2023 All rights reserved
Gee, I’m not sure exactly where to begin. We could start with what’s making the course hard. As Stanley, Delmontagne, and Wood point out in the offsetting piece, students may be finding the course hard because the instruction isn’t very good—not well organized, unclear explanations, content seemingly irrelevant, and poorly constructed test questions. Or, students may find the course challenging because the content isn’t easy and the instructor has high standards.
No doubt, ineffective instruction makes the students work harder, but what are they working harder at? Is it learning or cleaning up the clutter so that learning can proceed? And what about the conditions for learning created by poor instruction? Frustrated, angry students are not kindly disposed to the content or the teacher. Poor teaching does not usually motivate more learning. I just can’t quite wrap my head around the idea that poor teaching merits preserving because it makes students work harder. What’s the more salient issue? Whether students are working hard or whether they are learning the content?
The automatic virtue associated with hard courses is something we don’t explore as deeply as we should. I absolutely support courses with rigor and standards. I am not in favor of easy courses or easy A’s. However, when it comes to hard courses, there is a point of diminishing returns. The College Teaching article referenced below provides just one example of what’s well documented in the research. If students are convinced there’s no way they’re going to succeed in a course, the bulk of them stop trying, and that certainly effects what they learn in the course. Moreover, if the teacher has made a good faith effort to teach, the students have made a good faith effort to learn, and a majority of students are still failing or doing poorly, that’s a hard course whose virtue should be questioned.
I’m also troubled by the motivation behind making courses hard. It isn’t just (or even usually) about better learning experiences for students. No, it’s about the reputation of the course and its instructor. Even if you teach at an R1 institution where instructional sins are often tolerated, the one to avoid is teaching a Mickey Mouse course. What’s the definition of a hard course? It’s one overflowing with dense, complicated content and one with high standards, meaning few students get A’s. Is learning front and center in our thinking about hard courses? I don’t think so. Learning is assumed, which means it isn’t thought about much or at all.
Then there’s the easy courses—the ones we worry about are those with fluffy content and far too many students getting A’s. The ones we should be worried about are those where teachers are doing all the learning tasks for students. If teachers answer all the questions, solve the problems, provide the examples, do the previews and reviews, give students their notes and PowerPoint slides, and prepare the study guides, they’re doing those things that develop the skills students need to master the material at those levels we associate with deep learning.
I really don’t think hard or easy should be our default thinking mode when the issue is course quality. That leads us to dubious conclusions and directs our attention away from what matters most. What students need are not hard or easy courses, but course experiences that result in lots of learning—where they master the material, further develop the sophisticated learning skills necessary for lifelong learning, and where the encounter leaves them breathless to learn more.
References: Stanley, L. E., Delmontagne, E. M., and Wood, W. C., (2016). Offsetting behavior and adaptation: How student respond to hard professors. Journal of Education for Business, 91 (2), 90-94.
Martin, J. H., Hands, K. B., Lancaster, S. M., Tryteen, D. A., and Murphy, T. J., (2008). Hard but not too hard: Challenging courses and engineering students. College Teaching 56 (2), 107-113.