Academic Rigor White Paper 3: Aligning Institutional Processes to Support Academic Rigor

Cover of Academic Rigor White Paper 3, Aligning Institutional Processes to Support Academic Rigor
Authored by Andria F. Schwegler, Associate Professor of Psychology in the Counseling and Psychology Department at Texas A&M University - Central Texas

Andria teaches a range of fully online courses at the graduate and undergraduate levels, including statistics, research methods, history of psychology, and social psychology in addition to courses in the psychology of learning and educational technology. She is the Graduate Coordinator for the Master of Science in Educational Psychology program.


Academic rigor may be poorly conceptualized and not fully aligned with institutional processes because many assume it is an inherent quality of higher education without the need for examination (e.g., Labaree, 1997; Whitaker, 2016), or some may assume that it cannot be objectively assessed. 


Institutional Processes

Faculty-Student Interactions and Students’ Evaluation of Instruction

To expand understanding and implementation of academic rigor, actions that faculty members can perform as they interact with students to facilitate their learning need further investigation. Many studies acknowledge that faculty-student interactions are important, but few provide evidence of specific behaviors that are associated with learning; whereas, others suggest that some faculty behaviors are unrelated, or even negatively related, to student learning. Specifying faculty members’ behaviors that support learning is critical because many behaviors evaluated by students and administrators have not been demonstrated to facilitate learning.


Faculty Teaching Observations and Evaluations of Teaching

Administrative evaluation of faculty provides opportunities for faculty members to demonstrate the variety of ways they promote academic rigor in their learning contexts; however, these processes may need revision to accommodate the multitude of ways rigor can be supported and the implications of upholding it.


Assessment of Student Learning and Engagement

Though academic rigor is a quality of the learning context, it is of little value when removed from a consideration of what students know and can do as a result of participating in that learning context. However, existing assessments of student learning may fail to fully capture learning due to poor test construction or lack of relevance to real world applications of the information. Assessment of student learning may need revision to more closely reflect real world tasks and may need to be supplemented with opportunities for students to report behaviors related to engagement in the learning context.


Support for Teaching

In their efforts to make teaching visible and document academic rigor in the learning context, faculty members may benefit from peer support for teaching. However, low participation rates in professional development opportunities and the stigma associated with seeking teaching support may inhibit meaningful collaborations among faculty, to the detriment of student learning.


Institution and Program Marketing

Institutional communications to the public should reflect the value assigned and activities supported to foster academically rigorous experiences for the advancement of student learning. Institutions may need to reconsider marketing strategies to clarify the messages they are communicating to prospects, parents, students, and other stakeholders regarding the purpose of a higher education and their identity as an institution of higher education.

 

Implications of an Observable Definition of Academic Rigor

Quality Education for All Learners

Definitions of academic rigor that are based on selecting the most qualified and well-prepared students do not provide access to a college education for many individuals. Creating processes that allow all learners, not only those who are already well prepared, access to a quality higher education and the resources they need to succeed are essential.

 

Students Value Rigor

Despite the challenges it adds, research indicates that students value academic rigor in their learning experiences. Students report being better prepared for the real world having been academically challenged, and their evaluations of their teachers are not compromised by rigorous learning experiences.

 

Pathways to Degree Completion

Definitions of academic rigor that are based on selecting the most qualified and well-prepared students do not provide access to a college education for many individuals. Creating processes that allow all learners, not only those who are already well prepared, access to a quality higher education and the resources they need to succeed are essential.


Conclusion

Aligning institutional processes with an observable definition of academic rigor – one that is based on research evidence and makes central the importance of student learning – requires a critical examination of existing procedures and documents to verify they acknowledge the multiple, evidence-based ways to demonstrate rigor and accommodate the implications of doing so. A more explicit and aligned approach to demonstrating rigor facilitates clear communication with stakeholders regarding the value of student learning to the institution. 


References

About NSSE. (2019, March 15). Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm

American Association of University Professors. (1975). Statement on teaching evaluation. AAUP Bulletin, 61(2), 200-202.

American Association of University Professors. (2009). Statement on professional ethics. Retrieved from the American Association of University Professors website: https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cain, T. R. (2014, November). Assessment and academic freedom: In concert, not conflict. (Occasional Paper #22). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/OP2211-17-14.pdf

Cheatle, J., & Bullerjahn, M. (2015). Undergraduate student perceptions and the writing center. Writing Lab Newsletter, 40, 19-26.

Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36. doi: 10.1080/13538320500074915

Culver, S. (2010). Course grades, quality of student engagement, and students’ evaluation of instructors. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(3), 331-336.

Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795-805.

Draeger, J., del Prado Hill, P., Hunter, L. R., & Mahler, R. (2013). The anatomy of academic rigor: The story of one institutional journey. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 267-279.

Draeger, J., del Prado Hill, P., & Mahler, R. (2015). Developing a student conception of academic rigor. Innovative Higher Education, 40(3), 215-228. doi: 10.1007/s1075 5-014-9308-1

Fink, L. D. (2013). The current status of faculty development internationally. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), Article 4, 1-9.

Hutchings, P. Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270-284. doi:  10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014

Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2016). The 2016 Inside Higher Ed survey of faculty attitudes on technology: A study by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2016-survey-faculty-attitudes-te…

Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2018). 2018 survey of college and university presidents: A study by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2018-survey-college-and-universi…

Keller, C. M. (2018). Reframing rigor: Implications for institutional practice and policy. New Directions for Higher Education, 181, 89-96. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/he.20273

Klein-Collins, R. (2010). Fueling the race to postsecondary success: A 48-institution study of prior learning assessment and adult student outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.cael.org/pla/publication/fueling-the-race-to-postsecondary-…

Klein-Collins, R., & Hudson, S. (2018). Do methods matter? PLA, portfolio assessment, and the road to completion and persistence. Retrieved from the Council for Adult & Experiential Learning website:  https://www.cael.org/

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.

Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., & Kinzie, J. (2015). Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.

Mathers, C. E., Finney, S. J., & Hathcoat, J. D. (2018). Student learning in higher education: A longitudinal analysis and faculty discussion. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1211-1227.

Micari, M., & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the professor: Impact of the student-faculty relationship in a highly challenging course. College Teaching, 60, 41-47. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2011.627576

Pan, S. C., & Rickards, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710-756. doi: 10.1037/bul0000151

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Hibel, J. (1978). Student-faculty interactional settings and their relationship to predicted academic performance. Journal of Higher Education, 49(5), 450-463.

Pleitz, J. D., MacDougall, A. E., Terry, R. A., Buckley, M. R., & Campbell, N. J. (2015). Great expectations: Examining the discrepancy between expectations and experiences on college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17(1), 88-104.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x

Rugutt, J. K., Ellett, C. D., & Culross, R. R. (1998, January). Discriminating student learning and efficacy levels in higher education: Contributions of classroom environment and teaching and learning effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Houston, TX.

Samudra, P. G., Min, I., Cortina, K. S., & Miller, K. F. (2016). No second chance to make a first impression: The “thin-slice” effect on instructor ratings and learning outcomes in higher education. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(3), 313-331.

Schnee, E. (2008). “In the real world no one drops their standards for you”: Academic rigor in a college worker education program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(1), 62-80. doi: 10.1080/10665680701764502

Schwartz, D. A. (2009). The impact of more rigorous grading on instructor evaluations: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 2(1), 162-172. Retrieved from https://www.nu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/7638_JournalofResearch09…

Strada Education Network and Gallup (2018, May). From college to life: Relevance and the value of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.stradaeducation.org/consumer-insights/relevance-and-higher-education/

Sweet, C., Carpenter, R., & Blythe, H. (2017). Reaching those faculty not easily reached: How CTLs can improve participation in faculty development programming through faculty innovators and online instruction. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning, 9, 73-83.

T Tran. (2018, February 26). Academic rigor linked to alumni perceptions of college value [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/228263/academic-rigor-linked-alumni-perceptions-college-value.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=SIDEBOTTOM&g_campaign=item_226934&g_content=Academic%2520Rigor%2520Linked%2520to%2520Alumni%2520Perceptions%2520of%2520College%2520Value

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22-42. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

Whitaker, M. (2016). (Re)defining academic rigor: From theory to praxis in college classrooms. Currents in Teaching & Learning, 8(1), 4-17.

Date Published