Dumbing down a Course or Student Retention?
Jane takes an introductory sociology course. She doesn’t like to “read,” although she reads and writes a lot of text messages. In fact, Jane reads and writes nearly every hour of her waking life. But her sociology professor assigns more sustained reading than she is accustomed to, so Jane almost never finishes (and sometimes never starts) the reading for each class.
But her sociology professor has required that each student post “at least one interesting idea from the reading” into either Facebook or Twitter each night. Meanwhile, students who actively question, develop, or personalize the ideas in other students’ posts are excused from the requirement of posting something new from the reading. Because her text messages are connected to Facebook and Twitter, Jane gleams some of the ideas she never reads from the textbook and still gets credit for responding to them. She gets into her text discussions, but her statements are often distortions of the original material.
Does this posting assignment do a disservice to students like Jane?
On the one hand, Jane’s reading attention span handicaps her. We might argue that the posting assignment enables Jane’s handicap by offering her an alternative to a sustained engagement with the textbook. If Jane is not the only student who opts out of reading the textbook in favor of this shortcut, then we might say that the posting assignment replaces informed engagement with superficial interaction. We can go even further by adding that her handicap likely derives from our technologically supported culture of soundbite learning — and that rather than confronting the problem, this assignment is contributing to it.
On the other hand, whereas the assignment itself promotes superficial interaction, other assignments can inspire informed engagement. In other words, a “dumb assignment” doesn’t have to dumb down the course as a whole. But why would a professor require such a potentially superficial assignment?
Perhaps we should reevaluate the effects of that assignment. Without such an assignment, Jane likely would withdraw early from this reading-and-writing-intensive course. Although some might claim that merely the assignment’s easiness keeps students like Jane in the course, maybe we can offer a different interpretation: It’s not the facility of the assignment, but rather the facility with which the assignment draws her into the learning community.
It’s easy to withdraw from a course. It’s hard to withdraw from a strong sense of community.
The longer students like Jane stay in a course, the longer they have exposure to the course material. If they are more attuned to their classmates than to either the textbook or lecture, then they still acquire some of that course material vicariously, through the advent of their classmates. And eventually, they might “look stuff up” (something else Jane doesn’t always associate with “reading”) in order to improve their engagement with the community.
Jane may not pass the course. But if she enters into the course’s learning community to engage the material vicariously, Jane might improve her relationship with the material enough to engage that material directly — if not this semester, then perhaps the next time around.
September 21st, 2009 at 8:31 am
I think the real issue at hand is sustained concentration over a period of time. Additionally, its about developing a career skill set for jobs employers are willing to pay people to fill. My thinking is simply that in many fields (Not all), people are required to sustain concentration and maintain focus for 8+ hours a day or at least 3-4hr blocks. Social structures have changed, most students 12 yrs old and older have little “fear” (not sure this is the right word), of their parents or teachers authority. Many simply feel they can make their own decisions which by itself isn’t bad, but many lack the wisdom to make productive decisions. Many students gravitate to classes precieved as “easy”. So this type of assignment may encourage students to enroll, and I agree this is a good thing. However, how does it benefit the student if they learn after the first 3 weeks that the class is going to be much more difficult than they anticipated. At some level this does not help the student. If they knew the class was difficult they could have made an informed decision about staying in the class when they may have been able to take a different course or saved tuition. Instead they invest 100% tuition in a course they find out they cannot handle. This leads to one of two outcomes: They drop and pay for something they get no credits for or they stay in a class they cannot handle and fail the course. Perhaps they will attempt the course again at a later date but does this help the student, I’m not so sure it does. So lets compare the benefits/risks. The hidden hypothesis is if I improve retention I will aid the student, and if I make the difficulty to hard I will hurt the student because they will not be retained and then not graduate. To err is human, we all make mistakes. However some students take classes repeatedly and either never pass or they pass with a C or a D. This type of accomodation is not for the student who ocassionally struggles in a single class or drops a class or two. This is for the student who either has decifiences (writing, concentration etc.) or who does not have the attention span required for college level work. So let’s say students retake several of these classes and eventually pass with marginal grades (this is typical, rarely those who fail get A’s or B’s in repeat courses). Let’s say these students even progress to graduating with a diploma in their respective field. John or Jane Doe employer takes a look at the resume and transcript of the individual who has failed and repeated several courses. They decide not to hire the individual. They interview with another employer and another, still no job. In the competitive job market, marginal performers do not get the jobs. This means the student has a very expensive piece of paper with a degree that does not impact their quality of life (especially if they have loans). Lets say courses are made easier and student have better grades with less knowledge. This student interviews and gets a job. Upon their first few weeks of work the employee (APSU grad) takes far longer to accomplish tasks, generally is less focused on their work, and has a weaker understanding of their field and their concepts. Employee B (APSU grad without these accomodations) developed stress coping mechanisms, the ability to focus for 3-4 hours at a time, can read detailed literature, and still has the abillity to use social networking etc. Employee B has a greater likelihood of being promoted, retaining their job, and contributing to the organization compared to Employee A. In summary if our goal is to look good on retention rates and paper diplomas then lets graduate everyone. If the goal is to produce a quality student capable of working effectively with prospective employers and positively reflecting on our educational quality then I don’t believe these types of assignment are effective for long term goals. They may temporarily solve enrollment issues or justifications in staff/faculty but long term I am not sure this is helpful. I believe its not about passing a course its about an outcome and thats employability.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:47 am
Hi Perry,
Thank you for your comment. You made some great points, and I hope you’ll share them at tomorrow’s faculty roundtable discussion on “Media-Based Learning Styles: Should Higher Education Yield to Them?”
I agree that teachers shouldn’t surprise students by giving off the false impression that a course is easier than it is. But there are ways of providing assignments of varying complexity without misleading students about the complexity of the course. Also, I would argue that a teacher’s varying the complexity of assignments does not in itself enable more students to pass a course. On the first day of class, many teachers provide some sort of self-introduction activity. That activity is tangential at best to the course material, but it facilitates the students’ sense of community. Students get to know each other well enough that they might talk to each other about the course outside of class, at least to get notes when they miss a day. All I’m asking is, Why don’t we create more of those community-building opportunities — especially when the internet, text-messaging services, and other technologies enable us to offer those opportunities without wasting valuable class time?
I’m trying to answer the following question: How do we get students to talk about the course material with each other, even beyond the confines of an assignment? As far as I can tell, the only way to achieve that is if the students befriend each other and develop a strong bond as APSU Fall 2009 Section 3 Biology Class — and that doesn’t happen over the more rigorous assignments. Of course, that doesn’t mean the more rigorous assignments shouldn’t determine who passes the course. It just means that woven between those more rigorous assignments are some community-building activities.
By the way, you made a very astute observation about students as young as 12yrs old having a structurally different relationship with authority. Coincidentally, I was just reading that same argument in Bob Pletka’s _Educating the Net Generation_. According to Pletka, because of the communal nature of wikis, YouTube, and the internet in general, many millennial students have problems elevating one voice as an authority over others. Pletka describes this characteristic as “empowering” and “democratic,” but you’re right: many millennial students too readily assume the role of information’s judge without knowing how to assume responsibility for that judgment.
Great observations, Perry. Thank you for contributing!