Imagine you’re a professor who wants to improve the way you teach by moving away from the lecture style toward new pedagogies that encourage deep learning. You consult with the experts at your institution, probably found at your local Centre for Teaching and Learning, and learn about new ways to structure your class and new types of projects for your students. You walk into class on the first day, pass out a syllabus, and explain the new structure of your course to your eager audience.
Immediately, the number of students in your class dwindles. You begin to receive complaints that group work is unfair, there’s not enough direction, and no one knows what they’re being marked on. When your students evaluate the class and your teaching, you see a significant drop in your scores. Because lower scores could impact a future promotion or tenure decision, you abandon your innovation and return to more traditional teaching techniques. You’ve become a victim of the system you worked so hard to improve.
This narrative plays out every year at campuses across Ontario. Students are a smart bunch and learn very quickly what it takes to succeed at university and exactly how much (or how little) effort they must put in to get the result they’re looking for. Lacking any understanding of the theory behind learning, many students rebel against innovative teaching that pushes them out of their comfort zones. Why stick with a class where you have to relearn how to be successful? Because a lower mark could impact a student’s future, many students choose to switch classes and return to more traditional teaching techniques. Sounds familiar.
If we’re going to get serious about introducing new pedagogies and supporting deep learning instead of surface learning, it’s not enough to get buy-in from faculty. Something must be done to convince students to step up and engage in new ways of learning. What if first-year orientation programs included some brief information on the benefits of different types of learning environments? What if students who take innovative classes could be marked on a pass/fail basis, thus eliminating their trepidation with trying something new? What if students were required to take a certain number of courses containing a large proportion of new pedagogies?
Whatever the method, more student engagement with these issues is needed.
Alexi White
Executive Director
Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance
Your last idea – that a required proportion of credits come from new pedagogies – has a ton of promise.
Back when I was researching undergrad programs, each college at UofT required students take a small, hands-on seminar in their first year that emphasized collaborative learning and new instruction models. It didn’t follow a typical lecture and coursework format. Because of the experimental nature, these courses were offered on a pass-fail basis.
There’s also something American schools do very well (which unfortunately we haven’t embraced in Ontario): all students are required to take a slate of courses in maths, sciences, liberal arts and humanities regardless of their degree program. Of course, barriers exist there, too: namely that certain courses become “bird” versions – math for business, English for non-English students, and so on. This will always be the case when such a premium is placed on grades and grades alone, though.