Although the term is used frequently, there is no universally accepted definition of academic rigor. According to a post on the MIT Teaching + Learning Lab blog, traditionally, rigor has often been equated with a highly challenging, inflexible curriculum with heavy workloads requiring extensive reading and studying. A blog entry from the University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching indicates that rigor in college teaching setting would, at a minimum, “involve thoughtfully chosen, clearly laid out learning goals, targeted assessments of those goals, and learning activities designed for students to reach those goals …” Furthermore, “an indicator of rigor would measure how many students (and by how much) have pushed the boundaries of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes in order to meet the course objectives.” This definition focuses on intellectual aspects of rigor.
Debates about academic rigor and its purpose have shown that some instructors consider rigor to be a process of upholding standards and setting boundaries, while others see it as a gatekeeping mechanism to “weed out” students who would be successful under more flexible circumstances (Jack & Sathy, 2021) These instructors think of rigor as the opposite of being flexible. To them it means setting high academic expectations, having strict policies about how and when students will engage in activities, and grading harshly
Conversely, speaking at MIT, Brooks and McGurk argued that rigor is “not simply hard for the sake of hard, but purposeful and transparent” and is an essential aspect of inclusive teaching. In fact, “true inclusion necessitates rigor to empower all students to grow, build on their strengths, and learn.” According to the University of Michigan CRLT, rigor can promote equity by setting high expectations for all students (regardless of their background) and providing them with the support and resources they need to meet those expectations.
In recent the years, this issue has generated increased debate, leading to what has been termed the “rigor wars.” When, during the pandemic, some instructors reduced course demands to be compassionate and “give students grace,” critics complained that courses had become less rigorous. Now that the pandemic has ended, some have argued that instructors should return to pre-pandemic practices. Others, however, have questioned whether this is, in fact, the best course. According to Supiano (2022), writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, professors in the first group believe students need structure and standards. Their guiding principle is rigor. Professors in the second group believe students continue to need flexibility and support. Their guiding principle is compassion.
This dichotomy is manifested in the misalignment between what instructors say we’re doing with “rigor” and what students are experiencing in courses identified as “rigorous.” When faculty members are asked to describe what makes their courses rigorous, they cite cognitive challenges. They see rigor as involving critical thinking, active learning, high expectations, and meaningful content. When students are asked about rigorous courses, they point to logistical factors, focusing on how much they are asked to do and the help they get in doing it (e.g., workload, grading difficulty, clarity of instruction, and level of support; WCET, 2022).
To shed light on these competing stances, Gannon (2023) has argued that courses can be difficult intellectually or logistically, and that instructors sometimes conflate the two, imagining that content and logistics are associated. He differentiated between two types of rigor
- “Logistical rigor – characterized by strict deadlines and attendance policies, more assignments, examinations with a high number of questions relative to the allotted time for their completion, or grading curves aimed at minimizing the number of A’s.
- Cognitive rigor – courses are made more challenging via course content and pedagogy. For example, students are asked to question their prior assumptions and engage with material that is sophisticated, complex, and theoretical.”
In the words of Supiano, “Some forms of challenge support learning; others are arbitrary obstacles that may well hinder it.” An intellectually difficult course challenges students’ assumptions, increases motivation, requires effort, and enhances skills. Intellectually difficult courses push students to learn. A logistically difficult course has strict policies about when and how work is produced and evaluated.
According to Gannon, some instructors believe that logistical changes will lead to cognitive improvements, that the key to creating a cognitively challenging course is to “overload students with work and grade harshly”. They measure rigor in relation to logistical issues (e.g., the number of pages that students must read for class each week or the or the number of writing assignments in a course), assuming they are posing meaningful cognitive challenges to students when they are “loading them up with work.” He argued that logistical rigor is not necessarily correlated with actual learning; rather, it creates logistical barriers to their learning. Flexible policies are intended to make students’ lives easier, but that does not necessarily mean students will learn less. To facilitate student learning, which is the goal of teaching, instructors should strive for cognitive rigor and avoid logistical rigor by creating a challenging yet supportive learning environments that foster growth without imposing unnecessary barriers to student success.
Speaking at MIT, Gannon presented three essentials 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.
- Transparency When instructors are transparent about how a particular course assignment relates to the course’s learning outcomes or concepts, their learning is advanced.
- 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.”
Cavanagh (2023) argued that there is a belief that “rigor, intellectual challenge, and high expectations are incompatible with care, inclusion, and responsivity.” She thinks this is a false dichotomy and claimed instructors “can have high expectations, be demanding, and offer cognitive challenges but do so with personal warmth, encouragement, and compassion.” Courses should not just focus on an outcome; they should be structured to support students in achieving those outcomes. Like Gannon, she asserted that the most important question to ask about a pedagogical practice is whether it advances learning. In her view, this goal can best be attained through balancing structure and compassion to create compassionate challenge.
The Baylor University Paul L. Foster Success Center defined academic rigor as creating an environment in which students are expected to learn and demonstrate learning at high levels. Rigorous learning environments are stimulating, engaging, and supportive. Rigorous assignments encourage students to think critically, creatively, and flexibly and to question their assumptions. These learning experiences are challenging and help students understand concepts that are complex, ambiguous, or contentious and acquire skills.
The University of Florida Center for Instructional Technology and Training, like the University of Michigan CRLT, has suggested best practices for designing courses, activities, and assessments that are rigorous and promote equitable learning:
- Vary the challenge of the assessment: Include a variety of questions or tasks so that students must practice higher-order critical thinking and problem-solving strategies in addition to lower-order skills such as recall or classification.
- Set high standards and share clear performance expectations: Provide students with a rubric that includes a detailed explanation of the type of work you expect.
- Provide scaffolding for complex assignments: Build intermediate stages into more challenging assignments or projects and provide timely feedback throughout the semester.
- Keep appropriate workload in mind: Repetition does not necessarily equate to greater learning. Think about the type and number of activities assigned to students and balance their workload.
- Include course elements that are interesting and relevant to students.
Sources
University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching Blog
Reframing Rigor to Promote Equity in Teaching and Learning
Illinois Library
A Conversation About Rigor in Teaching
Supiano, B., The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2022
The Redefinition of Rigor
Jack, J. and Sathy, V., The Chronicle of Higher Education (2021)
It’s Time to Cancel the Word ‘Rigor’
MIT Teaching + Learning Lab
Rigor as Inclusive Practice
MIT Teaching + Learning Lab
Rethinking Rigor
WCET, Frontiers, 2022
How Our Understanding of Academic Rigor Impacts Online Learning
Gannon, K. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2023
Why Calls for ‘Return to Rigor’ Are Wrong
Cavanagh, R., The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2023
They Need Us to Be Well
Baylor University Paul L. Foster Success Center
Academic Rigor
University of Florida Information Technology
Ensuring Academic Rigor