4.3.5 Differentiating Growth from Acquiescence
by James Hadley (Director of Education, Hamilton College) and
Cy Leise (Psychology & Human Services, Bellevue University)
Instructional approaches that encourage learner passivity and avoidance can be replaced with effective strategies that support a culture of growth and empowerment. Educators must plan curriculum and instructional facilitation carefully to assure that students buy in to active learning strategies that are relevant to learning outcomes. This module analyzes a number of misconceptions concerning the meaning of the term “student-centered,” with an emphasis on practice implications. Faculty need to approach their own professional growth as leaders of learning communities by clarifying the difference between helping students to grow and acquiescing to their desires. Students, in their course evaluations, tend to reward instructors who are popular. This often encourages instructors to lower their standards rather than to focus increasingly on facilitating learning and growth outcomes. It is important that those educators who emphasize growth rather than acquiescence develop professional coping strategies such as collaborating with like-minded colleagues and joining organizations that support scholarship related to learning.
 

Misconceptions about Learner Centeredness and Acquiescence.

Over the past decade, the educational paradigm has shifted from a didactic, expert-focused pedagogy to one that emphasizes quality principles and learner centeredness. Terms and theories include total quality management, quality circles, best practices, six-sigma, quality process, and the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award (Massy, 2003; Mergen & Stevenson, 2002). Students are now “customers,” classroom observations become “quality improvement opportunities,” and surveys are used to determine whether the “product,” i.e., the educational experience, meets the customer’s expectations. As part of this shift, the limited validity of many faculty evaluation surveys has been recognized, making their use problematic for accountability, salary, and promotions. The result, in combination with many other significant variables, has been that the general population often stereotypes educators as being acquiescent in their approach to students. This is assumed to be correlated with poorly prepared students who lack those basic learning skills that are valued by employers.

Learning accommodation is a valid problem-solving approach required by the American for Disabilities Act (4.3.6 Students with Learning Disabilities) to ensure that students get needed support for sensory, physical, and emotional barriers to learning. The term “acquiescence” is used in this module to refer to practices that tend to create learning habits characterized by low-quality learning by poorly motivated students who have no diagnosed learning disabilities. Although acquiescent strategies constrain learning and growth, educators resort to them because they satisfy students in the short run. The following practices have resulted in a culture of enabling in contemporary higher education (Linn, 2003).

These and other patterns of enablement are the antithesis of what needs to happen to support growth. The solution is not to adjust and acquiesce, but to promote a culture of student accountability and empowerment (3.1.1 Overview of Quality Learning Environments). If an instructor elevates the expectations and outcomes to five times what is typically expected, this will result in significant growth for the student (Schimmel & Langer, 2001). Educators who have implemented improvements in the entire teaching/learning cycle find that a five-fold increase is realistic across a range of outcomes, including changes in attitude (Harris & Bretag, 2003).

Typically, faculty use adjustment strategies to assist students who fail to complete class and course work. Though this “understanding” may seem kind, these strategies may actually create a pattern of enablement. Table 1 illustrates some common adjustment techniques that are well-intended but which may inhibit learner growth; these are contrasted with techniques that are likely to enhance learner growth.

Creating a Climate of Empowerment and Accountability

In order for learners to grow, educators must constantly assess the learning process and help their learners develop realistic self-assessment skills. They must make the learning process challenging enough so that students experience some frustration with the learning tasks (4.3.4 The Accelerator Model). However, growth can be realized only if students take responsibility for learning and accept the learning challenge.

To create a climate of empowerment, educators must take responsibility for the learning outcomes of their students and facilitate the learning process. Facilitation plans that establish the required learning environment begin with detailed curriculum planning. Besides facilitating classroom work that is relevant to all learners, educators often find it beneficial to intervene constructively (3.2.7 Constructive Intervention) for individual learners whose lack of specific learning skills is causing barriers or interruptions in their learning process. Often the problems of a few students, whose skills are below the minimum required for success, will disrupt or hold back an entire class. The Classification of Learning Skills (2.3.3) in the cognitive, affective, social, and psychomotor domains provides a resource for identifying either group or individual skills in need of improvement.

Educators frequently complain about students’ unwillingness to take on difficult learning tasks, their frequent nonattendance, their lack of class preparation, their inadequate high school background, and low college admissions standards (Levine, 2005). Interestingly, educators also complain about grade inflation, even though it is due to their own decisions, blaming it on pressures arising from the above litany of preexisting problems. The public tends to take a dim view of these excuses (Hebel, 2003).

Instead of making excuses, educators need to focus on challenge and growth. In Performance Levels for Learners and Self-Growers (1.4.5) it is clear that increases in learning performance levels, which range from “trained individuals” through “master learners,” are always directly correlated with changes in level of growth, which range from “static individuals” through “star performers.” Learning is defined as the change in knowledge and transferable skills attained either from educational environments or from other experiences. Growth is defined as the change in the level of challenge that a learner consciously and persistently seeks. As the level of learning increases, it becomes more difficult for a learner to continue unless self-growth becomes stronger. For example, students asked to plan how to address their own learning improvement needs may not be able to do so if they are at the learner level of “trained individuals” because they believe that deciding what and how to learn must be directed by a teacher. Until learners move beyond the lower self-growth levels, they will feel satisfied with meeting minimal criteria, such as attaining average grades.

Lower-level learners (trained individuals) and growers (static growers) are typically poorly motivated and believe they have minimal control over the processes involved in achieving assigned work. They also tend to socialize less with other students, have more absences from classes, and need more explanation and encouragement to complete tasks. Higher-level learners (master learners) and growers (star performers), by contrast, feel empowered and accountable for performances and products regardless of challenges. They have a strong grasp of subject content and can consciously apply this knowledge in multiple contexts. Their self-motivation is demonstrated especially in their continual seeking of greater challenges and better quality performance outcomes. Master learners and star performers are emotionally mature. They are reflective about their own learning processes, and they contribute substantially to the effectiveness of any learning environment.

High Learning Standards Require “Tough Love”

In child rearing, the term “tough love” denotes an affective approach that promotes the child’s growth but which may not always make him or her happy. Imagine for example, that a child, while playing baseball in the backyard, breaks a neighbor’s window and then lies about it. If he or she has previously been told not to play baseball in the yard, the parents may choose to respond by making him or her mow the lawn for a month without being paid the usual allowance. This tough love approach builds responsibility and accountability into the experience; it works in a context of love and support.

Similarly, educators need to use a “tough love” strategy to maintain high learning standards in today’s college classrooms. But to do this, faculty must change some of their assumptions about why students do not learn well. Too frequently, educators focus on personal characteristics of students (e.g., they are not smart enough). This illustrates a fundamental attribution error of judgment which occurs when personal traits are assumed to explain observed behavior. For example, explaining poor performance as being due to a “lack of motivation” rather than the more likely situational factors related to the quality of the learning environment (Bandura, 1997). To institute a tough-love philosophy, educators should do the following:

  • Understand and believe that students are competent and capable in the learning process and can meet and exceed established expectations.

  • Recognize that learners will struggle with new concepts and ideas; be willing to hold them accountable for additional effort needed to master these new concepts and ideas.

  • Ignore the complaints that the material is too hard, that there is too much background reading required, or that homework is too extensive.

  • Do not accept excuses for missed work due to absences or tardiness. Require that all assignments are completed in order for students to receive credit.

  • Expect students to conduct research outside of class.

  • Manage classroom activities so that all must participate and show respect toward all students and faculty.

  • Encourage students to step out of their individual comfort zones in order to grow and explore individual potential.

  • Employ cooperative learning activities in which ideas are shared in groups, and new concepts are explored through required group participation.

  • Require each student to make class presentations to experience the angst associated with oral presentations.

  • Expect students to learn to use and apply technology.

A tough-love strategy is also essential in the process of assessing and evaluating faculty. Tough love requires one to identify clear performance standards and communicate them to the faculty member prior to the assessment or evaluation. This eliminates ambiguous feedback. By discussing performance criteria and what measures will be used in advance, one will further help to identify growth opportunities.

Student Evaluation System Conundrum

Commonly-used student evaluation instruments tend to influence students to give above-average ratings to faculty members who are entertaining and who appease students with few expectations, little accountability, and high grades. Conversely, faculty members who expect significant learner-performance outcomes, who hold students accountable for timely and insightful work, and who motivate students by raising the academic bar in class will typically receive student evaluations that are average or below average. This faulty student evaluation system rewards popularity and discourages accountability (1.5.4 Writing Performance Criteria for a Program and 1.5.5 Identifying Performance Measures for a Program).

Student evaluation systems often directly influence administrators’ college and tenure decisions. Faculty who historically receive average or marginal student evaluations rarely receive merit pay increases, may be stigmatized by the department chair or dean, and have a real fear of being denied tenure with the college. These same average instructors, however, may be deemed average only because they have instituted the philosophy of tough-love that calls for high expectations and student accountability, regardless of student complaints.

In order to validate student evaluation systems, check-and-balance procedures should be employed. Specifically, faculty and administrators with solid experience and expertise in pedagogical methodology should conduct formal assessments a minimum of four times during the semester. These assessments should mirror the areas of instruction that are measured by the student evaluation system. If there is a significant discrepancy between the observations/assessments by experienced administrators and the outcomes of student surveys, this discrepancy needs to be further evaluated. It is difficult to justify holding faculty accountable for a measurement area on a student survey that is not addressed in the formal assessment process.

Concluding Thoughts

In the contemporary education environment, a focus on helping students to adjust to college rather than facilitating a learning-to-learn approach that fosters their growth has created an atmosphere of enablement in the negative sense rather than in the positive sense of appropriate accommodation. The examples of growth-oriented techniques in Table 1 suggest how practical decisions by educators can have a far-reaching impact on student learning and growth. As learners improve in performance they become increasingly capable of growth corresponding to their sense of empowerment. A deliberate shift in educators’ mindsets about accountability and performance could have a dramatic influence on standards in higher education.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Harris, H., & Bretag, T. (2003). Reflective and collaborative teaching practice: Working towards quality student learning outcomes. Quality in Higher Education, 9, 179-186.

Hebel, S. (2003). Public colleges emphasize research, but the public wants a focus on students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, 14-15.

Levine, M. (2005). College graduates aren’t ready for the real world. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, 11-12.

Linn, R. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations (CSE-Report-601). Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. University of California, Los Angeles.

Massy, W. (2003). Auditing higher education to improve quality. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, 16-19.

Mergen, E., & Stevenson, W. (2002). Sowing the seeds of quality: Quality at the source. Total Quality Management, 13, 1015-1021.

Schimmel, J., & Langer, P. (2001). Raising the graduation bar for the schools: Expectations vs. outcomes. Psychological Reports, 89, 317-326.

 

Table 1  Comparison of Acquiescing and Growth-Oriented Techniques
 

Student Growth Opportunity

Typical Acquiescing Strategy

Growth-Oriented Technique

Timely completion of assignments

Typically acquiesce to students’ excuses; provide more time to complete work either in class or at home.

Hold students accountable for completing work on time: give no credit for work that is turned in late, make passing the class contingent upon completing all homework, missed work means class failure.

Fully attending class

Noncommittal; show apathy toward students that have frequent absences.

Develop a contract with student on class attendance; identify consequences for non-attendance.

Coming to class prepared

Typically overlooked or ignored. “They are paying for this education; if they don’t want to read, that’s their business.”

Give an unscheduled quiz or test on material that was to be read prior to class.

Responding to board work when called upon

“We’ll get to you next time when you feel more comfortable with the material.”

Coach students in the “here and now” and let them know that their angst is a normal reaction.

Doing research outside of class

Accept inferior work or assist in finding research resources.

Develop a “scavenger hunt” on where to find different research resources and opportunities.

Giving an oral class presentation

Praise mediocrity and give credit for presentations that are well below potential.

Identify in the syllabus that several oral presentations with assessment feedback are a growth component of the class.

Participating in group work

Typically do not monitor groups to see who is participating and contributing.

Assign specific roles and tasks for each group member; rotate group roles.

Preparing for tests/exams

Give one type of test/exam throughout the course, e.g., multiple choice.

Provide different test methods throughout the class for growth and exposure to different types of tests.

Learning computer applications

Lower expectations because students may not have the latest technology at home.

Make computer lab work a mandatory component outside of class.