Search News


Browse Archives

News

'Teaching Unprepared Students'

November 25, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many experts say that the United States can only truly see gains in the percentages of adults who have a college degree if colleges and universities get better at teaching students who arrived on campus unprepared for college-level work. But many professors find themselves frustrated by teaching such students -- and many of the students drop out. Kathleen F. Gabriel's new book is designed to help such faculty members and, ultimately, their students. Teaching Unprepared Students: Strategies for Promoting Success and Retention in Higher Education was just published by Stylus. In an e-mail interview, Gabriel, a professor of education at California State University at Chico, explained some of the key points of the book.

Q: Many professors would love to avoid this subject, saying that high schools need to do a better job, or remedial classes should provide the solution. You write that professors need to be engaged on this issue. Why?

A: I certainly agree that high schools need to do a better job of preparing their students for college level curriculums. However, the reality is that right now we have freshmen and transfer students who are not prepared, but who are enrolled in our classes and want to learn. Many colleges do have some remedial courses, summer bridge programs, and tutoring centers to assist at-risk and unprepared students and attempt to increase their chances of being successful. Still, those who have historically been underserved -- including those who are the first in their family to be able to go to college -- have the lowest graduation rate. Furthermore, we should not turn our backs on students who were not adequately prepared for college in our current public high school system regardless of the reasons.

If we are sincere about giving at-risk students who are enrolled in our classes a real chance of success, then professors must also be engaged and not just refer these students to academic support or tutoring centers. If we, the professors, are not reaching out to at-risk or unprepared students who are enrolled in our classes, then we are simply setting these students up for failure and, at the same time, only pretending our colleges have somehow fulfilled a moral obligation of providing opportunities to our diverse population in today's society.

Furthermore, several studies have proven that professors do make a difference in their students' intellectual development. Unprepared students can achieve an increased level of performance with the encouragement and support of their professors.

Q: Your work stresses the importance of expectations and the way a course starts off. What's the key to reaching students early?

A: I give several suggestions in my book, but I would say that there are three very important things professors can do on the first day and during first week of classes. First, on the first day of class, professors should have their students participate in an engaging, yet educational, activity. The activity should be one where professors and students are learning information about the people enrolled in the class. It is very important to start learning the students' names and allow students to meet each other. Learning students' names is key to creating a community atmosphere for a class.

Second, require students to be in class from the first day, which means dropping students who are absent on the first day and not allowing students to add unless they have attended the first class since it is on the first day that professors should hand out and review the course syllabus. On the syllabus, professors can include a "welcoming" statement, along with course policies, expectations, reading assignments, grading policies, etc. (A syllabus checklist is provided in my book to assist professors along with a discussion for each of these subtopics.) Grading policies should include a variety of ways that students can demonstrate what they are learning as well as an accompanying rubrics for all assignments.

Third, on the first day, have students fill out an information card that not only includes their contact information, but also has them write why they signed up for the class and lists their personal goals for the course. By reaching out to students and asking them to provide information about themselves, professors can begin creating a positive and inviting atmosphere. (Additional engaging activities that can be used early in the semester are discussed in my book.)

Q: What are the common mistakes professors make when confronted with students who aren't prepared?

A: There are many different ways to help students step-up to higher standards and make significant gains in their academic performance. Teaching Unprepared Students is not about lowering standards; it is about how professors can use different techniques that will help student grow and improve and how to help the students learn. The biggest mistake a professor can make is to provide a "false" sense of progress and success to a student who has not done the work or complied with the expectations that are outlined on syllabi. I have seen this happen primarily in three different scenarios.

First, it is a mistake to excuse an unprepared student from a class assignment or grade his/her work differently from other students in the class. Professors must hold all of their students to a fair and equal grading system. There should never be a special deal, or "secret" extra credit after the fact. Any kind of extra credit or revision that is offered should be available to every single person enrolled in the class -- and announced publicly in class and well before the last few weeks of a semester -- or after classes have ended. Not holding all students to the same standards and requirements is unfair to everyone -- especially the unprepared students.

A second mistake is to treat the unprepared students with pity, disrespect, or considering them academically incapable of improving. Regardless of a students' academic history, professors should maintain high levels of expectations for unprepared students since most students tend to respond to how they are treated and the expectations that are set for them. It is a mistake not to let students know that you expect their best effort, hard work, extra time spent on assignments, and make a commitment to the class if they are behind.

A third mistake is failing to provide students with detailed rubrics for all assignments, especially written ones. We need to provide the opportunity for undergraduate students to revise their written assignments. Unless it is impossible to do, I highly recommend this practice with specific guidelines.

Q: What kind of out-of-classroom support do colleges need to provide to reinforce what professors are doing in class?

A: There are many ways colleges can support their faculty. Colleges should have faculty development programs for faculty, and second, colleges need to have academic support centers available for the students. Faculty development programs can provide pedagogical workshops and support as professors develop learner-centered teaching methods to engage students, broaden their use of assessments and rubrics to improve learning, develop and improve clear and thorough syllabi, incorporate universal learning design techniques, etc.

Professors are also supported when colleges have academic support for students. Having tutoring centers, writing labs, and supplement instruction programs for targeted classes can help any students who are struggling and seeking support.

Q: Many fear that too much emphasis on the poorly prepared will detract from the experience of those who are prepared. How would you respond?

A: The teaching strategies presented in my book are ones that support the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, by Chickering and Gamson, which are positive and beneficial for all students whether they are highly prepared for college or unprepared. In addition, several research studies have found that when we engage all students in “educationally purposeful activities” then all students can benefit. In one study, "Connecting the Dots," by Kuh et. al. (2005), they report that the traditionally underserved students made greater gains but did not do so at the expense of other more prepared students. Using learner-centered teaching practices and other techniques that I discuss in my book does not required faculty to lower their expectations or do anything that would detract from more prepared students.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'Teaching Unprepared Students'

  • Underprepared vs unmotivated
  • Posted by Steven D. Aird on November 25, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • I never had a problem reaching and teaching underprepared students who wanted to learn. However, the students who are both underprepared and who lack any semblance of a work ethic are another matter. When these students have been taught for twelve years that they will advance to the next grade regardless of how little they have learned or how little effort they have invested, they are incapable of performing at a college level. That is because many of them have never even achieved a junior high school level of self-discipline. Such students are doomed to fail not only in school, but in life. They are tomorrow's blue- and white-collar criminals.

  • UNPREPARED?
  • Posted by Comm Prof on November 25, 2008 at 7:45am EST
  • If they are unprepared for college-level work, retention should not even be reached as an issue -- because they should not be admitted.

  • Posted by Ollie , Motivation is key on November 25, 2008 at 7:45am EST
  • I agree with Aird about motivation. With more and more unprepared students, and a life outside of work, time becomes a constraint. One should always work with unprepared students who are willing to make the extra, sometimes small, effort to succeed. It is not my job to act as a parent by setting up a whole set of activities and rules to get the student to do what they are supposed to do. It is certain that employers in this ever increasingly competitive world environment will not hand-hold them and "pass" them regardless of outcome performance.

  • Faulty logic
  • Posted by bevo on November 25, 2008 at 8:10am EST
  • The subject of the interview states "However, the reality is that right now we have freshmen and transfer students who are not prepared, but who are enrolled in our classes and want to learn."

    I challenge that logic. Too many students are enrolled because they have been sold a bill of goods. They are not their to learn. Rather, they are there to get a job. They have been told this by high school teachers, family members, public policy makers, admission officers, etc. All of them have said the key to getting a good job, making lots of money, and having a great life is, all together now, a college degree.

    These students fail to take to ownership of their education. They will blame the instructor for having grading standards, for demanding their work meet certain criteria, and for inconveniencing their lives. These people do not care about knowledge.

    The students who want to learn take ownership of their education. They come to your office to ask for assistance or to improve their understanding. They speak up in class. They do the assignments and are willing to work at a skill until they have mastered it.

    Unfortunately, those students are few and far between.

  • The Usual Crabby Professors :)
  • Posted by Steve , Director of Writing; Director, ITW Writing Project at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis on November 25, 2008 at 8:10am EST
  • Good morning; I can be crabby, too. But in the end, that doesn't help. Universities and K-12 schools must partner to help students succeed all up and down the line. All of us should work together to make this a more just and equitable society. In the meantime, unless you assume that all struggling college students are lazy and unmotivated, it is our opportunity to help alleviate injustice by mentoring students who might otherwise be cast aside. The article speaks of high expectations, not dumbing down or coddling. But all learners benefit when professors actually learn about learning, instead of delivering instruction. Even prepared students are often bored by lectures, powerpoints, and exams that emphasize recall or regurgitation.

  • Unprepared Students and Prepared Scholars
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Assistant Provost/Prof. of Hist. at Indiana Wesleyan University on November 25, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • Scott -- This is a timely article, esp. in the light of the massive response to The Teaching Professor's broadcast last week, "What Faculty Members Need To Know about Retention." Also, for research underpinning some of Dr. Grabriel’s notions, see the other new release, "The Role of the Classroom in College Student Persistence" by John Braxton (in the JB New Directions for Teaching and Learning Series--see first chapter on "unprepared" students). Also, Maryellen Weimer's "Enhancing Scholarly Work on Teaching and Learning" (JB). Much of what Gabriel notes about reality checks with students was trumpeted by Alfie Kohn in "Punished by Rewards," a book that drew sharp criticism by many for what Thomas Kuhn would have called a challenge to the pedagogical paradigm (Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, around ’62). Our research teams keep finding intrinsic motivation as the fulcrum for student success, which I attempt to distill in "Why I Teach" and the "Purpose-Guided Student" (McGraw-Hill). Others are telling this same story, such as Larry Braskamp and indirectly through the professors' role in Parker Palmer’s work. You’ll also find this highlighted in Patrice Middlestadt’s dissertation about the most effective professors at Clemson (they talk about the future). The dynamics that make a Randy Pausch "Last Lecture" so powerful are inextricably linked to the keys to addressing student success issues. Philosophically, most professors no longer have the choice of whether a type of student should be in their colleges (or, contrary to Gabriel's practice, whether they can dismiss them after one absence), so the issues Gabriel raises are indeed ones we need to consider. I suppose the biggest challenge for many of us, esp. from disciplines outside of Education, is that all of these issues are far outside of our graduate preparation. A good starting point is Tracy L. Skippers primer on student development theory (USC, 2005 or 06). Thanks for this review/interview. JP

  • Ditto for HS freshmen
  • Posted by Joe Stehno , Director of Guidance at Bishop Brady High School on November 25, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • I work in a Catholic, college prep high school that sends over 95% of our students to college. We are facing the same issues of unprepared and unmotivated students as discussed in the article & comments. Every year it seems, we (and all of our peer institutions in NH) admit very intelligent (high test score) students, some who have a pathetic work-ethic; who want education to be entertainment; and who lack basic academic skills. We have implemented a "front-loaded" program for freshmen that involves a core of battle hardened teachers along with various support services. Most kids catch on and eventually become successful. But every year, there are more and more kids who arrive without an adequate foundation. It's scary to think about the students coming up, what they're going to need, and how many resources they will require. I wish I could be optimistic but I see all of us caught in the cultural demise of what learning and education is all about.

  • attendance, behavior
  • Posted by Chris , Associate Professor on November 25, 2008 at 9:15am EST
  • I wish the interview had also convered student conduct in the classroom, and the politics of professorial authority. Some underprepared students do not know how to behave-- they are perennially late, absent, and at times disruptive in class. Maybe the book touches on this.

    One of the strategies I use with such students is the "earning" of extra credit. Students may only make up certain missed assignments if they meet certain attendance and conduct guidelines. I try to use their instinct of self-preservation to enhance their behavior in the class and improve the classroom dynamic. I apply this rule to all students-- but it is really intended to address the conduct of the problematic students who miss assignments and come to class late, etc.

  • Unprepared v. Unsuitable
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on November 25, 2008 at 9:20am EST
  • The comments here highlight the fact that some students really aren't "unprepared" so much as they are entirely unsuited to the college experience. Those students won't succeed even with the help being described here, or with First-Year acculturation programs (I'm a little surprised not to see those mentioned, as my understanding was that they are very successful at enhancing preparation and retention). There are students, though, who are capable and reachable, and we need to make sure that they are taught.

    But any and all of us who teach general education courses with high percentages of first year students need to be aware of that. I don't do everything described here -- I do a bunch of it, but not all -- and I'm going to have to think about its suitability for my style and subject, but I'm going to think about it.

  • entitlement mentality
  • Posted by Jim on November 25, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • I would tend to agree with those regarding lack of work ethic. I see it everyday. Some students have a sense of entitlement regarding their academic performance, while others realize that their performance is a reflection of their hard work and effort. For many students, there is a disconnect between effort and performance. After many years of schooling this disconnect means these students are at the bottom of a very large hill. They will need an extraordinary amount of assistance to make any progress up the hill (forget about getting to the top). My question is: Is this the job of the university faculty?

  • Ah yes, the mantra of the pedagogy professors
  • Posted by Mojo , instructor at Houston Community College on November 25, 2008 at 9:40am EST
  • "Everything must be learner-centered." I have seen first-hand, at the secondary and post-secondary level, the debilitating effects this mantra has had on the learning environment. Life beyond the Ivory Tower is not, and the sooner we teach our self-absorbed students this fact, the better learners (and people) they will become. The kumbaya feel-good vibe is something I save for students who give a damn; I've been burned far too many times by diverting positive emotional capital towards students who end up dropping or failing anyway.

    The author is also living in Dreamland insofar as the idea about first-day attendance is concerned. In jucos and community colleges --the places where most underprepared students end up-- numbers trump quality every time, and you will never be able to enforce any such rule: the administrators will laugh in your face.

  • higher ed inc revisited
  • Posted by tom abeles on November 25, 2008 at 9:40am EST
  • We need to consider that the number of adjuncts in The Academy is rising well above 40%. These individuals are running about trying to keep food on the table, often have no offices and little time. Add to this the fact that most institutions reward faculty based on publications and other criteria, seldom weighted towards teaching.

    Ruch, in his book, Higher Ed, Inc, points out that in the private sector, every student represents income since these institutions run on tuition and not soft money. Thus faculty are rewarded for working with students since costs for recruitment are high.

    Many faculty prefer working in these student centered environments, though their status in The Academy is marginal at best.

    The same issue arises in K-12 schools. Some of the schools that have high retention, other than the privates, are those where there is a faculty rewarded for working with students and who motivate students to succeed. The Amistad or Achievement First schools in CT and NYC are a paradigmatic example.

    Until The Academy rewards such practices both in its own faculty and works to change this in the colleges of education's programs that work with future teachers and administrators, we are treating symptoms and not root causes. Palliatives and not cures.

    When most academics "see" a student for one course in that student's tenure and when, for example, a senior level course for majors has over 150 students at a high ranking public university, rhetoric and reality seem far from congruent.

  • A failure to educate
  • Posted by Lee Griffin on November 25, 2008 at 10:25am EST
  • First-year students who lack motivation may be, at least in part, the result of the gutless, brainless, spiritless kind of K-12 education wrought by No Child Left Behind. For most of their young lives, these students have learned that education is learning how to pass tests. It is not about opening one's mind, learning about a wider world, connecting with others, intellectual growth, or wondering about mysteries of life. It is a meaningless, purposeless, joyless preparation for an unexplored and undefined vision of something called the good life. It started in the middle of the Reagan administration - about 1984.

  • Posted by daniel najjar on November 25, 2008 at 10:50am EST
  • the author needs to spend more class time in a remedial math class trying to teach algebra to students who don't know fractions. i can't get ipodded, texting students to talk to each other at 9;30 on a monday morning. they are glazed over from a weekend of working 1 or 2 or 3 jobs. sure i can get them to improve their knowledge base, but not necessarily pass the class. the tutoring center sits under-utilized as few students feel they have additional time to be tutored. they're surfing through education, not deep-sea diving. in one of my classes i even have an in-class tutor for in-class exercises, yet few take advantage of her. in the end, semester after semester, about 15 of 40 initially enrolled persons are able to pass.

    it's time to find another educational route for persons who cannot learn abstract mathematical ideas, especially when we have only enough funding for 40-student classes. Are B.A. programs lacking a single math requirement really an impossibility? we should neither need nor expect to create a country of 300 million nerds. our poignant, unfaced problem is that we have created a too-technological society that has become unrealistically demanding to a large proportion of decent people.

  • Preparing the unprepared
  • Posted by Faculty Person on November 25, 2008 at 10:55am EST
  • Students should NOT be in regular college classes they are not prepared for. I favor the summer remediation programs and other methods of keeping these students out of the mainstream until they can swim.

    We have students who are in two or three remedial classes who are at the same time enrolled in a number of regular classes. It does not work very well.

  • Academic Guidance Programme
  • Posted by IRIS , Redt.Prof.of English at The United theological College on November 25, 2008 at 11:20am EST
  • I have read with great interest all the comments so far and wish to add my own experience.I taught English for theology.Since the Indian church needs trained personnel the question of rejecting such sts that you are discussing was not allowed and yet they had to come upto our standards.The English langauge was another stumbling block for sts who had studied in rural areas where English is hardly used these days.Even though we provided both Remedial English and Advanced English and Study skills too, all taught by me in succession through 2 terms, it was felt by all the faculty that what was required for such sts was not just good teaching, after they had passed the Entrance exams, but an initiation into academy. After much discussion it was decided to invite two candidates from each of the 35 dioceses in S.India to send us candidates who were either economically deprived, or rural or who were marginialised such as women and tribals.Even here we were not quite sure where to draw the lines as economic deprivation does not always mean academic poverty! Yet, we persisted and after 4 years of this I can claim that we were successful in that EVERY faculty member met these sts for about 4-6 hrs during a 4 -week period to introduce their subject and as English teacher I did the most..as they needed so much help.The course was called Academic Guidance and was well received.Though it involved extra expenses and Faculty time, it has proved beneficial and sts then sat for the regular Entrance exams a few months later.
    Some , of course, decided not to try for admission here but even that was a good result, I feel ,as the st would not feel inadequate later.Those who joined the college had been truly helped to see what was expected of them here and have said as much.They are doing well despite all their fears.
    Iris Devadason from Bangalore, South India

  • The Larger Picture
  • Posted by Kirk on November 25, 2008 at 11:20am EST
  • This is a pretty good conversation. There are a few important considerations I'd like to add.

    First, those who say some students are completely unmotivated - motivation is directly linked to teaching methods and ability. Oddly, we allow faculty who have great content-knowledge but painfully little pedagogical (or, more appropriately, androgogical) knowledge into the classroom. For those who say unprepared students shouldn't be admitted, how about getting rid of all faculty who aren't prepared to teach? I think then you'll see motivate and retention skyrocket. True, students must make an effort; there must be a meeting, halfway. But, in my experience, those who say students shouldn't be allowed access because they don't have the ability are often woefully unaware of even the most basic teaching strategies.

    Second, we shouldn't lose the forest for the trees. The issue of access is bigger than what happens on campus. First-generation students often have a combination of ability yet relatively less preparation. Do we exacerbate the inequalities of our society by denying them access to school, or support in the classroom? If so, then perhaps we deserve to be derided as "living in a bubble." I have worked hard, and will continue to work hard, to support first-generation students. Teaching must be connected to the larger world, or it is a futile exercise.

    Well, maybe that will generate a few responses...

  • Posted by Victoria , Professor on November 25, 2008 at 12:00pm EST
  • How I would love to drop the students who don't show up for class on the first day. Alas, I would also probably be cleaning out my office by the end of the first day. While many of us would love to have higher standards, or at least maintain the ones we have, we are pressured from "those above" to keep students in class who don't belong there. And, I have no problem working with students who are motivated to learn, but who, for whatever reason, are unprepared. What I have a problem with is administrators who won't let us drop students, who issue veiled threats if we have "too many" D's and F's, or if we have students who complain because our classes are "to (sic) hard." We will not be able to correct any of the problems mentioned in any of the comments until we have administrators who grow backbones and learn to say "no" to students and parents who want diplomas with no work attached.

  • Yes--look at the big picture
  • Posted by Prof Ed on November 25, 2008 at 12:00pm EST
  • Kirk notes: "Second, we shouldn’t lose the forest for the trees. The issue of access is bigger than what happens on campus. "

    Amen. Those just saying "don't admit the unprepared" are also saying ...."and let the prepared students support all of the unprepared on welfare."

    With GATT and NAFTA and every other movement by government designed to move highly paid manufacturing out of this country and bring in cheap and often illegal workers in to do those jobs that cannot be moved out, there is now no place for the unprepared graduate without high level thinking abilities in 21st Century America.

    Given the State of the economy, it makes me wonder whether about 95% of those with finance, business, political science, and economics degrees shouldn't be classed with the "unprepared." What in the h--- were these people learning not to see that allowed them to steer the entire global economy onto the rocks?

    Given what the "educated" old guard has managed to do of late, let's not be so hard on students who have been dumped on by K-12 and don't yet even know it. Not much that depends on education for competence is running particularly well right now.

  • Amen!!
  • Posted by Avid Reader , Teaching Asst on November 25, 2008 at 12:15pm EST
  • I look forward to reading the book asap. I am currently assigned to teach a quantitative class where students have varying backgrounds ranging from high school algebra to advanced calculus. I was very disillusioned that the professor had given up on the students two weeks into the start of the semester. As a diligent grad student struggling with school in my own right, I sympathized with the students but also felt obliged to teach them the concepts in a systematic manner. The students have responded very positively. STUDENTS WANT TO LEARN. Professors are often quick to judge and the excuse of poor, lazy students which justifies the professors reducing the effort they put into their classes.
    Secondly, I found that professors who were not the stereotypical straight A students themselves seem to be better teachers than professors who cannot (or refuse) understand how and why some students cannot make the grade. Like the article suggests, there exist a multitude of techniques suited to taking lagging students to straight A students. Administrators should make more concerted efforts to hire professors who can directly related to their students circumstances.
    I hope this becomes required reading for all HBCU professors and administrators. Stop the denial, stop the excuses, take student evaluations seriously!

  • Another comment.....
  • Posted by New Prof , Assistant Professor on November 25, 2008 at 12:50pm EST
  • As a new hire and new academic I am participating in a program designed for new faculty members sponsored by my institution. I took courses in my area of expertise but I had one course on how to teach and it was taught by an assistant dean who obviously wanted to be in his office crunching numbers vs. in the seminar room talking pedagogy. That said, I would hate to think that because I arrived not really knowing how to teach I would get kicked to the curb and my expertise dismissed.

    I agree that some students aren't prepared for college and perhaps more stringent admission standards are the answer, but what about the ones already here? We can blame NCLB, poor funding, crappy parents, faulty standard-based high school programs and even the economy if we want but the fact remains that we have students admitted, paying tuition that may need to learn how to be a college student as well as whatever content area we teach. At least the author is addressing this reality.

    As far as motivation, I have learned that the more energy and passion I have for the lesson that I am willing to share, the more invested my students get. Many of us are guilty of wanting positions in higher education so that we can conduct research and teaching is an unpleasant duty connected to that. Yes, I want to do research but I don't mind being challenged to become a teacher in addition to being knowledgeable in my field. I guess I don't understand why suggestions about how to teach a certain group is such a big deal. Of course I am one of those first generation college students who was unmotivated and needed a professor to say to me, "I read the book, too. I want to know what you think about it!" so that I could learn how to think critically. Some of us just weren't reared in as fortunate circumstances as others so are learning curve tends to be a bit steeper.

  • How Low is Low?
  • Posted by Director of IR , Director of IR on November 25, 2008 at 2:40pm EST
  • Just how low are we talking? At my previous college (low selectivity) I saw high school transcripts of college students who entered high school unprepared and apparently, while they were there [in high school], there were no miracles. They'd have to be geniuses (and their professors, magicians) to make up for years of grade school and middle school in one term of college with enough terms left to benefit from college.

  • Kirk & NewProf
  • Posted by DFS on November 25, 2008 at 3:30pm EST
  • As I understand it, being a trained mathematician and not a trained educator, andragogical learning does not immediately assume it is the fault of the teacher if the adult learner struggles -- it's inherent in the nature of the adult learner to work together in groups to learn basic concepts.

    This makes perfect sense, since adults of any stripe bring wisdom into the classroom and to social interaction, and so this explains why I see many of my underprepared adult students form study groups on their own. This is a good thing, but I don't make it a part of the daily classroom experience. There are days, however, when I tell everyone to work together.

    Since by the time people enter college they are no longer children, of course pedagogy has no business being practiced there. Even when I was a college student, I and everyone else assumed that study groups were the way things were learned, and that the professor was there to guide the direction of the course and to answer any relevant questions.

    Since pedagogy is for children, then perhaps colleges should not hire people trained in this, at the sacrifice of hiring the professional majors. After all, the college student is presumed to be an adult.

    NewProf is right to assert that "the more energy and passion I have for the lesson that I am willing to share, the more invested my students get." This works on adults as well, and since the clientele are adults, and we also were motivated most by our professors when they provided energy and passion, NewProf should remember that being "knowledgeable in my field" then takes priority over "being challenged to become a teacher in addition." The college should also maintain its fundamental role as the depository of knowledge and a promulgator of research.

    Resist the tyranny of the education majors!

  • Basic Principles of Learning
  • Posted by Mr. B on November 25, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • In my personal experience with education, there were huge gaps in the skill levels, workloads, and complexity of course material between high school and the university. The level of skills I acquired in high school and the level of motivation required to succeed there were wholly inadequate for university level work.

    I was an A student in high school, but at the university, I quickly emerged as a C student and eventually for a time, a D student.

    Had I not been motivated to learn the basic principles of learning on my own, I would never have graduated. What did I do? I went to the Learning Skills Center to learn about reading and to use their reading machine. I kept a stack of interesting books next to my bed and read them every night before going to sleep. I painstakingly worked on my vocabulary. I took calculus twice, once at the non-science major level and once at the science major level. It took me several years to acquire the basic skills necessary to become an average student at a university.

    During that time, I taught myself how to be a student: Read/preview the text ahead of the lecture, attend class, pay attention, take notes, make friends with successful people students, attempt all homework and classwork problems, work with study groups, reread and reread the text, review and review my notes, redo and redo homework and classwork, constantly study/review, etc. I DID NOT LEARN THESE THINGS NOR WAS I TAUGHT THEM IN HIGH SCHOOL.

    Is it any wonder that so many students fail?

    It took me seven years to graduate. After my third year, I decided to become an engineer and I enrolled in the College of Engineering. I got a D in my first physics class (I hadn't taken calculus, physics or chemistry in high school.), but by the time I graduated, I made myself into an A student.

    Several years later, when I got my MBA, I graduated with honors.

    Several years after that, I decided to teach high school math and I discovered that no one was teaching these kids how to be successful students so I developed an overhead slide containing my Six Principles of Successful Students and I drilled them every day until they knew them by heart.

    One day, one of my high-potential underachieving D students challenged me, "Mr. B, this is a bunch of BS." We had a heart-to-heart and I got her to agree to diligently follow the Six Principles every day for two weeks. I told her that if they didn't work for her by then, I would stop bugging her about doing better.

    Two weeks later, she earned a B on her chapter test. She was so shocked that she apologized in front of the entire class. She went on to become an A student and an advocate for being a good student.

    I guess the moral of the story is, education is merely an opportunity for an individual to better him or herself, nothing more. We educators merely have the knowledge and experience to help those who are motivated to reach their full potential, nothing more.

  • Posted by CRB on November 25, 2008 at 4:40pm EST
  • Unprepared students should be sent back to the K-12 system and the K-12 system should be held responsible for educating them. This is not mean or harsh; this is better for the student and society. When the student goes to college, she or he has to pay college tuition rates, and ends up spending money for an education that should have been provided free of charge. The student should not have to pony up the extra funds, or use federal, state, or institutional grant funds or take on student loan debt to get the education that has been pledged to every student. We wonder why the cost of college is so high, and why our financial aid system is so overburdened, and why it takes students 6, 7, 8 or more years to graduate from a 4-year program (using their own, the school's and the government's resources for all those extra years, or again, drowning themselves in debt). We ask why students with high school diplomas can't read a job application, fill out a financial aid form, or make change when ringing up a sale at the local burger joint. Why does it take a college degree now to verify that a person has basic job skills, when a generation ago a high school diploma was a certification of general competency? And even a degree now is no guarantee that the recipient can compose a proper sentence or paragraph, spell things correctly, add, subtract, multiply and divide; and have the common sense to check his work for accuracy and completion.

    The K-12 educational system has to be revamped to ensure that every student who receives a high school diploma is prepared to go into the workplace and/or on to a post-secondary institution (including vocational and technical schools as well as colleges and universities). Social promotion has to go. Bad teachers have to go--those who do not know the material, those who do not produce results, those who cannot read, write or spell themselves, those who cannot pass competency tests in the area in which they teach, and those who cannot maintain an orderly classroom. Disruptive students who cannot be controlled by normal discipline must be removed from the classroom and placed in alternative training, and parents must learn to teach their children respect and self control or not expect their children to be kept in the mainstream classroom. Students and parents cannot be allowed to rule the classrooms; and teachers and administrators cannot be allowed to force the teaching on the parents and families by assigning homework instead of getting through the material during the course of the school day. Homework is for practice and review, not basic instruction. And this nonsense about having students being able to read by the third grade is ridiculous! That is way too late! Schools need to go back to proven techniques, like teaching phonics, and have students master at least the rudiments of reading in the first grade. Babies as young as 6 months have been taught to recognize words and to read; we should not be waiting for students to start learning to read when they are 8 and 9 years old. If they can't read before third grade, they are essentially missing out on all the other subjects too, like science and all the social sciences--because those subjects are taught from books with words that have to be read!

    So, in short, put students that need K-12 training in the K-12 system, and make sure the K-12 system works. The rest will fall into place.

  • All true -- but profs were students once, too
  • Posted by MRC on November 25, 2008 at 5:20pm EST
  • I went to college in the late 80's, and I attended with a group of privileged, intelligent, fun-loving kids. Some were highly motivated. Many practiced study habits that tested how little they could get away with. The most popular professors were not the ones who taught us the most but those who had class on the lawn or whom we could talk with at the Mexican restaurant while drinking cheap beer. No one I knew was ever withdrawn from a course for poor attendance, and only a few received Ds or Fs. Some of us now have careers, and some of us do not.

    Little has changed. How motivated are we professors? How well prepared? While teaching at a community college, my colleagues did not want to update their textbooks because they did not want to change their lesson plans -- lectures they had written decades earlier and had never updated. In graduate school, I have been faced with graduate professors who have not done the reading and who hope we seminar students will carry the conversation. At a major research university, being taught by tenured professors, we must be "learner centered."

    Human nature being what it is, I am thrilled by the successes not disheartened by the failures. I learn from my students, and I don't want to be the one who refuses to change. If this book has new-to-me ideas I can mull around and possibly incorporate to help another new college student get through one more semester, I welcome it.

    Why cast stones?

  • Exactly, Mr. B
  • Posted by DFS on November 25, 2008 at 5:20pm EST
  • And this is what I see in my current crops of developmental students at my CC.

    Often, they are not even allowed to bring home their tests in high school -- after all, these tests would then be "compromised," which means the teachers were too lazy or inadequate to be able to publish tests ad hoc. How, then, could they learn to correct their mistakes in time? When I was young, all of my tests were my property immediately. These days, my younger developmental students are amazed when I tell them that their tests are their property. I fought with my son's school over this.

    There is no longer any practical, targeted, self-study available to the upcoming underprepared student from high school. It's all a mystery to them -- an uninteresting mystery, being denied the natural recourse for self-correction. Instead, they are fed too much gobbledygook.

    Instead, you and you alone had to go back and dig out the basics. This tells me that you probably had at least one teacher, coming up, who clued you in to what worked for the centuries before the Education Major.

  • Higher Ed Inc. 2
  • Posted by George T. Karnezis on November 26, 2008 at 5:00am EST
  • I second Tom Abeles's observations above: we can wring our hands about under or unprepared students, but until we reward faculty for their expertise in assisting such students, we won't make progress. the adjunctification of collegiate instruction is, as Tom observes, a real factor here.

    I've taught college preparation classes, remedial/basic writing, as well as advanced undergraduate and graduate courses. Dedicating much of my time and energy throughout my career to what were often sneered at as "service courses," met with little respect or encouragement. Yep, if you wanted to make it in academe, you had to earn your stripes "in the trenches" in order to get out of them.

    I am, of course, pleased to see this interview and am glad such work is available even if it does probably echo much of what was said and done when "open admissions" of the late 60's began and sharp minds like Mina Shaughnessy's and Mike Rose's made fine contributions to assist those of us who refused to shirk the challenges of more inclusive admissions policies.

    Naturally,it is disturbing to listen to some of the hard-hearted sentiments that have been voiced here. Is it too much to hope that our new President will appoint a secretary of education who is sensitive to these issues and wants to address them with more than a band-aid?

    One other matter: it strikes me that many allegedly "prepared" students also present challenges, often coming to higher education with an inflated sense of entitlement. So I'd like to suggest that there are many forms of lack of preparedness, and some of the most vexing are evident in those students who, while sufficiently adept in "academic skills," are nonetheless more bent on getting through their education than into it. That's fine, except all too many find the old "gentleman's C" tantamount to failure instead of a valid indicator of their underachievement.

  • Everyone has a responsibility
  • Posted by Avid Reader , TA on November 26, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Just read this article:
    The bottom line is that all parties in the academic process have to get real - students, faculty, administrators, parents, employers, civic leaders ...

    http://www.articlesofinfo.com/article.php/26-11-2008Tenn-State-President-Goes-to-Class.htm

  • Unprepared or Unmotivated??
  • Posted by Isaac on November 29, 2008 at 7:55pm EST
  • I've been reading the comments to this article with some interest. While I am not an educator (I am an attorney), I am only 6 years removed from law school and 10 years removed from undergrad. In addition, both of my parents were educators and I have an interest in returning to a University to teach on a graduate or undergraduate level someday.

    I was always a good student in high school, college, and law school. However, I know from my own experience that the teachers/professors who took a vested interest in their students, who knew their names, and who fostered an active discussion and learning environment in class were always my favorites. Indeed, the classes where we were expected to sit, listen, and take notes (and do nothing else) were always my worst grades. Inevitably, I would become disinterested and pull down an easy "B" grade rather than strive for a higher grade (admittedly, this did change in law school as I knew grades directly impacted the quality of law firms that would be willing to interview me).

    In undergrad, I was floating through my first two years of gen-ed courses when I took an entry level Political Science course. I had a great professor who incorporated some Socratic method into his classroom, who refused to let students do cross-word puzzles (this was before I-pods and cell phones were prevalent), and who insisted that students come to his office to meet him. He later sponsored my admission to the Honors College, and I later took three additional courses from him and he advised me on my undergraduate senior thesis. He was also one of the main reasons I ended up going to law school. Now, would I have graduated without this professor. Yes. Would I have obtained good grades. Yes. But, would I have been as interested in my curriculum and law school. Unlikely.

    My point is only this -- when professors care, and when students can tell that they care, even good students are inspired to do more, to learn more, and to actively engage in class to foster a more academic and challenging environment for everyone. I would bet that the techniques offered in this book, while perhaps directed primarily toward teaching underprepared students, will benefit everyone in the classroom. I know from personal experience that I enjoyed class significantly more when half the class was engaged in a discussion rather than the same three people sitting in the front row.

  • Posted by inorganic chemist on December 12, 2008 at 2:15pm EST
  • A lot of this is difficult, especially in freshman level classes where the enrollment can be 300-500 students. Asides from the professors engaging the students, the teaching assistants should be helping as well.

  • Posted by Cheryl Garrett , adjunct professor on January 14, 2009 at 12:10pm EST
  • I am recently retired from being a lead AP teacher in high school. I have taught college classes on and off for 10 years. Students are entering high school as unprepared as they are entering college.
    Unless we as educators require better teachers--no alternatively certified ones---in our education system, we will keep "getting what we are getting."
    My students in the first semester classes at the local district college are very motivated. They want that degree. They are ready to work. We don't need to motivate, we need to provide bridges or scaffolding or whatever background they need to succeed.
    And, yes, false praise helps no one. The student knows. Rigor and guidance seem to be the best solutions.

  • How to Teach
  • Posted by Tena , Director of First-Year Writing, English at University of Illinois at Springfield on November 21, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • Too many college professors have not been taught to teach. They can eventually get it, but at the cost of much "professional development" time and funds. It is easy enough to require a single class (preferably two) at the graduate level about how to teach in one's field. Sometimes these classes are offered, sometimes not. But as a graduate student, you can make suggestions for what you need as a professional. You can. Stop whining about the system and change it. In addition, grad students should pay close attention to teaching models. Who affected you most as a student? Talk with him/her about how s/he teaches.

    The techniques described in this article aren't going to dumb down a professor's content area. Indeed, these are GENERAL EDUCATION courses that we are talking about here, not the theoretical underpinnings of Edgar Allan Poe's poetry. Professors should: 1) be happy to teach these students, unprepared as they may be, because they are the pool of potential majors and can justify more (or at least not cutting) tenure lines from majors; 2) prepare themselves to teach these students with at least the rudimentary techniques listed in this article (are folks really resisting learning student names or talking to students about their absences or not offering extra credit?); 3) create access to support in the college by just mentioning the services and inviting them into first-year classrooms, and 4) partnering with those "tyrants" in Education. Again, the whining needs to stop. Education experts have indeed researched and discovered good teaching techniques. Investigate those techniques and use (or not) according to your own teaching style. As long as teachers reflect upon their processes and don't regard teaching as secondary to their "real" job as a researcher, then professors will become better teachers. Tenure requirements are what they are. If you don't like them, change jobs to a teaching university. Or, better yet, teach in high school where the pay is often better! Then, you can fix these problems for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are a lot of barriers to teaching this population of students well. Professors need to choose to be in these classrooms, first of all, and stop staffing them with part-time, overworked, underpaid, desperate labor. Period. It'd be nice too if public schools were more interested in developing critical thinking skills instead of test-completion, parent-pacifying skills. But that's not what is happening. Yes, we have a culture that centers on entertainment, and classrooms have embraced this in many regards. Entertainment isn't necessarily bad. There's at least an advantage to mixing it up so that students see a number of delivery methods are are encouraged to develop listening skills, reading skills, writing skills, thinking skills.

    None of what we do as professors should be done in isolation from students. But there is a limit. When a student (and it is never ALL of them, despite the tone of many of the comments I've read so far) is working full time and uses that as an excuse for various problems (absences, tardiness, incomplete and insufficient work), then that's not okay. The student must make a choice. We hold them accountable. We should not enable the practices we see as problematic in the public schools. The article isn't suggesting otherwise. In fact, the more we hold them accountable, the more respect for the profession we engender. Students may say it is all about jobs, but it is our job to teach them that it is not just about jobs. This can't all be accomplished in a single study skills class or a single freshman composition class. It takes at least a year to get most of this troubled population on the right track, to help them break bad habits by not enabling them. We have to grade them fairly. We have to speak with them about their issues. We have to help them to see that school must be a priority, but it doesn't have to be done in four years as a full-time student. Our evals might tank, but retention will improve and, more importantly, these students will be more productive and politically responsible. If we don't embrace the teaching of these students, then we're doomed to repeating the same cycles about which we are complaining.