Teaching Decisions

This Q&A was adapted with permission from the book Chalk Talk: E-advice from Jonas Chalk, Legendary College Teacher, edited by Donna M. Qualters and Miriam Rosalyn Diamond –

Question

Dear Jonas,

Here is an actual, live problem…although you may not be the right one to answer in this column.

Is it better to teach what the students want to learn, or what we faculty feel is important to teach?

My faculty colleagues (some of whom have won teaching and/or research awards) and I are struggling with deciding whether we teach class material as stated in the published departmental course descriptions, at the level we feel is necessary for subject mastery, or at a lower level, with less challenging homework assignments and tests. While we understand that we have a responsibility of educating our students at a certain level of proficiency, we often find that by pushing hard and by raising expectations, the students get frustrated. Occasionally students will simply refuse to complete an entire homework assignment, because of excessive time required to finish it.

Since our teaching is evaluated entirely by students, and our job performance is judged by our Department Head and Dean using this student evaluation, it is important that we appeal to the students’ sense of quality teaching, and not alienate them. “Excessive work load” consistently contributes to a less than excellent review. In short, it is easier for a professor to do well on student evaluations by simplifying the course and making the students think they are doing just fine, then by formulating interesting and motivating, but challenging homeworks and tests.

The more idealistic professors will stick to their guns and do their best to teach the rigorous syllabus of course material. But it is tough to continue to be idealistic when the students criticize you for being too tough and the administration penalizes you for expecting too much of your students.

Signed: Still a little idealistic?

Answer

Dear Still a little idealistic?

“Is it better to teach what the students want to learn or what the faculty feel is important to teach?” My answer is YES! Learning is a two way street, neither the faculty member nor the student can be held solely responsible for learning. Unless we view our students as partners in the enterprise we’re doomed.

You’ve posed a very important question, and a short answer can only begin to address the issues. Of course faculty know what’s important to teach and most definitely must have interesting and challenging assignments that stretch students and push them to their academic limits. That’s what learning is all about. BUT it’s not that simple.

As you pointed out there are limitations such as being evaluated only by students, though national studies and one done here show that easy did not translate into higher ratings. I think motivation theory might provide a roadmap for faculty to help them retain the rigor and still meet students’ needs. Research tells us that motivation or discouragement can be the result of creating disequilibria in students, BUT that positive disequilibrium is found somewhere between what’s too easy (bores them and kills motivation) and what’s too difficult (frustrates them and kills motivation). Careful scaffolding of supports when teaching create the right balance that challenges students and keeps them interested enough to work hard. That’s important because motivation research also tells us that students will learn what they want to learn (i.e., what they are motivated to learn). So when they say, “it’s too hard”, they might mean, “it’s irrelevant” to them. Teachers should make connections between what they are presenting and why and what the student knows, so students can perceive the value of learning the material. We know the value and relevance, they often don’t.

How does one determine if positive disequilibrium has been established? Instructors have a responsibility to be fair in terms of judging the level of difficulty and the workload. If an instructor simply plows ahead with his or her agenda without adjusting for student comments (particularly if they are spread across all ability levels), then I’d argue that the instructor is not doing a good job as a teacher. There are mechanisms, both formal and informal, that instructors should use to check the decisions they’ve made about a course. On a formal level, most departments have an undergraduate or discipline committee where instructors can come to a consensus about course content based on student-faculty feedback. Less formal is feedback from listening to your students during the term (even inviting their comments), particularly those you believe are the best students. If strong students are struggling in a course because of the degree of difficulty or workload, the rest of the class will clearly be left in the dust. You could also use a mid-quarter evaluation that you administer to check how students are doing.

Can one be challenging and rigorous with high expectations, and still motivate students and still get good teaching evaluations? Absolutely! If you create positive disequilibrium and curiosity in students, balance support with demands, and give them some real applications, they’ll work hard and evaluate you fairly. This is a simple answer to a complex question, for a more detailed explanation of how to be challenging (not overburdening) and have students work hard and learn, take a look at the book by Wankat and Oreovicz (1993) on Teaching Engineering. It’s available in PDF format by chapters at www.asee.org/publications/teaching.cfm (link is external). I think it’ll be worth the time and energy.

The issues you’ve raised are important and will be part of my columns next year: how do we evaluate teaching in a more comprehensive manner, how do we measure proficiency in the classroom, how do we motivate and not compromise, and what’s the difference between pushing hard and pushing off the cliff?

Thank you for your provocative question.

Jonas

______

This content was adapted with permission from the book Chalk Talk: E-advice from Jonas Chalk, Legendary College Teacher, edited by Donna M. Qualters and Miriam Rosalyn Diamond.

Browse the complete Index of Teaching Challenges – Chalk Talk