In the quiet around the holidays, I’m working my way through education books, including the revised Biggs, Tang and Kennedy (Teaching for Quality Learning at University), founders of Constructive Alignment in education. This is, in short, the idea that as educators we should start by determining learning goals, then design assignments and assessments that help students achieve these goals. That seems obvious, but most of us spent decades doing this the other way around: deciding what material to cover, then how to test, and then what students might learn. Clearly, Constructive Alignment is a better way to get students actually learning what you aspire them to learn.
While I’m a big fan of Constructive Alignment, the “Robert and Susan” problem used to illustrate much of the approach irritates me to no end. For those unfamiliar: the idea is that the hypothetical student Susan is a highly motivated learner with background and skills that lead her to “deep learning”, pretty much regardless of how the teaching takes place. Our hypothetical student Robert is “just there for the degree” and going through the motions, so only superficially learning the subject matter (“surface learning”). So far, I can picture this.
My irritation starts when the goal of the teacher is framed as “getting the Roberts to learn like Susans”. It’s taken me some time to figure out just why this grates me. My main issue is: this kind of framing doesn’t treat (our fictional) Robert as a whole person, with things going on in his life. Of *course* we should teach to engage all students, and work toward ways of giving all students opportunities to get into deep learning. BUT: I also strongly feel as a someone in higher education that humanity and humility is needed in approaching our students.
Our students have lives, just as we do. Sometimes just being there for the degree, is all they have to give. If a student can’t give enough to get the degree at that specific time in their life, so be it. Approach them as the adults that they are. No, no one should be awarded a degree without sufficiently learning what they need to learn. I am in no way advocating for “sympathy passing”. I teach veterinarians. No one wants an incompetent veterinarian to get a degree.
I *am* absolutely advocating recognition that the Roberts of the world who are there “just” for the degree might be narrowly passing your part of the curriculum, but have A LOT to contribute. The Roberts often have a world of experience outside of class that the Susans would be well served being introduced to. Real-world problems that mean learning about work-life balance, for one. Or persevering down a path as a means to an end, even if you may not enjoy or excel every step of the way.
If we don’t approach our students as adults with lives and experiences, how can we expect them to study as adults?