I had the privilege of conducting a focus group with approximately seven learners at a doctoral residency last summer. I simply joined their table over lunch and starting asking questions. As a curriculum developer, I wanted to hear their perceptions of both the curriculum used in their programs and their individual progress. Their perceptions of these things were significantly different than those of the department chairs with whom I interact on a regular basis. While the chairs noted considerable struggles on the part of their learners, the learners were convinced that the program was relatively simple and that they were doing well.

This disparity surfaced when I ventured to ask the learners if they found the program to be too rigorous. To the contrary, most of them felt that it was not as rigorous as they had expected. Shocked that the curriculum may have been too simple and doing a disservice to our learners, I probed a bit deeper asking these learners how they defined rigor. I expected to hear that the assignments were academically challenging and that they had to do a reasonable volume of research in order to synthesize the ideas that were presented in the assignments. To my surprise (and relief), I discovered that these doctoral learners held a completely different definition of rigor than did I; the common definition among these learners simply equated rigor to volume of work. Since their courses did not routinely require papers of 20-30 pages in length, these learners felt the program lacked rigor.

So, how is rigor defined in academic settings? Better yet, how should it be defined? Wagner (2008) suggests redefining rigor as the means of employing skills including critical thinking, adaptation, collaboration, and effective communication.  In this definition, rigor clearly does not equate to quantity; the volume of work and knowledge is not of primary importance. Rather, rigor in this model is equated to applicability. Daggett (2005) concurs via his rigor/relevance framework. While these voices are from the K-12 educational world, the ideas they express should resonate with educators across the K-21 educational system. Indeed, Nordvall and Braxton (1996) echo this sentiment at the collegiate level noting that it is the nature of the assignments and the required level of understanding that create academic rigor. Their view inserts the elements of curricular design and faculty expectations. Thus, academic rigor should be measured by more than just volume of work and length of assignments. Academic rigor should be a mindset of quality and excellence displayed via materials selection, assignment design, applicability, relevance, and faculty expectations.

References

Daggett, W. R. (2005) Achieving academic excellence through rigor and relevance. International Center for Leadership in Education. Retrieved from http://www.dupage.k12.il.us/pdf/121306%20Achieving%20Academic%20Excellence%20through%20Rigor%20and%20Relevance.pdf.

Nordvall, R. C. & Braxton, J. M. (1996). An alternative definition of quality undergraduate college education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 483-497.

Wagner, T. (2008). Rigor redefined. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 20-25.