Inclusive Teaching & Academic Rigor

 

Frequently faculty resistant to inclusive teaching pose the following retort:

As much as they want to promote equity and inclusion in their classroom, they cannot adopt many principles because their course must be rigorous.  

Let’s unpack this claim and consider what is meant by “rigor”?   Often this term is vague and does not describe what type of learning environment we want (Clark & Talbert, 2021). As such, invoking ‘rigor’ as an excuse to not adopt inclusive teaching practices is either a conscious or unconscious case of sophistry.  Often there is a bifurcation in meaning of ‘rigor” where it can either mean:

•  Intellectual rigor; that challenges students to explore and master complex content and hone their knowledge through critical reflection.     
• Logistical rigor; that demands adherence to inflexible polices about when and how work or behavior is to be evaluated.

Courses could have either, neither, or both.   

Intellectual rigor directly relates to students meeting the course’s intended learning outcomes.  It is not a plethora of busy-work, but purposeful and transparent. Intellectually rigorous courses push students to learn. This can be done without excessive work, but instead with carefully aligning learning activities and assignments to expected learning outcomes.

In contrast, courses with logistical rigor have strict policies about when and how the student is to be evaluated. These inflexible rules are often short-hands for contributing to a wider grade distribution. However, grading based solely on students’ weight can likewise create a wide grade distribution (Syphers, 2021).  This does not ensure intellectual rigor or students learning the course content.  In fact, it can frustrate learning and help create inequitable barriers. If these barriers have no relationship with the learning outcomes, are they necessary?  Should we penalize ELL students taking calculus because they do not have a master modus auxiliaries and pluperfect tense in English? Why?

 

Logistical rigor can lead to infantilizing students by creating arbitrary barriers based on the faculty’s mistrust in them.  This ‘toxic” rigor assumes that students not meeting the logistical demanded are lazy and not to be trusted.  This adversarial attitude has never been demonstrated to improve learning outcomes, but does disproportionately hurt certain at-risk groups (Pryal, 2022). Toxic rigor sets up obstacles for students and frustrates their success while then criticizing their character for failing to meet these arbitrary barriers. However, this position tends to promote antipathy for students instead of empathy and the desire to guide them. Shouldn’t we believe in our students instead of doubting we should believe them?   

The thing that's really sticking out to me in my research and reading on "rigor" is that so much the rigor discourse is uncomfortably close to the language abusers use to justify themselves to their victims.

— Kevin Gannon (@TheTattooedProf) September 15, 2022

It seems that the appeal for ‘rigor’ is more often an excuse for not changing teaching practices without evidence or in spite of evidence that adopting inclusive teaching practices would improve academic performance. Providing scaffolds to assist student learning has been a best practice is pedogeological theories, such as Universal Design for Learning. Assisting students in successfully meeting learning outcomes isn’t undermining academic integrity.  It is just good teaching.

 

In short, we can retain our academic standards and care about our students at the same time.  Adopting inclusive teaching practices is indeed compatible with intellectual rigor.  In the end, since this is the version of rigor that cares about learning it is the only type of rigor educators should care about.   

References

 Clark, D and R Talbert (2021) Rigor, Seriously, what does that even mean? Grading for Growth, Sep 13.

Jack, J and V Sathy (2021) It’s Time to Cancel the Word ‘Rigor’ Chronicle of Higher Education. Sep 24.

Meyer, A, Rose, D. and D Gordon (2014) Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Inc. Wakefield, MA.

Pryal, K (2022) When ‘Rigor’ Targets Disabled Students Chronicle of Higher Education. Oct 6.

Supiano, B (2022) The Redefinition of Rigor Chronicle of Higher Education. Mar 29.

Supiano, B (2021) Teaching: A different way thinking about rigor Chronicle of Higher Education. Nov 18.

Syphers, D (2021) In Defense of Rigor Inside Higher Ed Sep 22.

Wraga, W. G. (2011). What’s the Problem with a “Rigorous Academic Curriculum”? Setting New Terms for Students’ School Experiences. The Clearing House, 84(2), 59–64.