“Engage students in rigorous and transforming learning experiences…” So begins the first item in Buffalo State’s current strategic plan.

However, no one seems to know exactly what “academic rigor” means, according to John Draeger, associate professor of philosophy and coordinator of the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning’s (CASTL) campus program. “Of course, everyone has an idea of what ‘academically rigorous’ means,” he said, “but, if we want to create such courses, defining the term seems like a good place to start.”

When Draeger was named CASTL coordinator in 2009, he was interested in developing a campus-wide research and service project. In fall 2009, he and colleagues Pixita Del Prado Hill, associate professor of elementary education and reading; Lisa Hunter, assistant dean of intellectual foundations and associate professor of music; and Ronnie Mahler, associate professor of social work, conducted a literature review to understand how people use and define terms such as “academic rigor” and “academic challenge.”

In spring 2010, 21 faculty members discussed the nature of academic rigor at a series of breakfast meetings, and those talks helped to shape the subsequent research. Over the summer, faculty members from across campus took part in focus groups to discuss “the anatomy of academic rigor/challenge at Buffalo State College.”

Draeger and his colleagues presented the results of their analyses of transcripts from the focus groups to the college on October 14. The transcripts revealed four major characteristics of academic rigor: higher-order thinking, high expectations, active engagement, and meaningful content.

Higher-order thinking, to the focus group participants, was indicated by students’ ability to analyze and synthesize ideas, make judgments (critical thinking), and apply theories. High expectations include faculty members’ expectations of themselves and their students as well as students’ expectations of themselves. Active engagement includes active learning as opposed to rote learning, and promotes discomfort and “stretching” students. It also tends to occur over time, and prompts students to take ownership of their own learning. Meaningful activity is relevant learning, excludes “busy work,” and is not merely difficult but difficult for a reason.

In an effort to clarify how these four characteristics overlap, Draeger et al pointed out that students could be actively engaged in relatively trivial material; and they could also be engaged in rote learning of meaningful content. “Academic rigor” could be the point where active engagement and meaningful content overlap.

Draeger was quick to point out that the research team recognized the limits of the study, which include a self-selected sample, the lack of representation from every department, and a small sample size (22 faculty members took part in the focus groups). However, faculty members from all four academic schools identified similar issues, suggesting that a consensus for defining “academic rigor and challenge” exists on campus.

Each characteristic of rigor led to more questions, such as “Can 100-level courses be rigorous?” “How can a faculty member or the college support students with low expectations of themselves?”
“What is the role of service learning and field experience in students’ active engagement?” “How can course design lead students to become independent learners, especially in general education and 100- and 200-level courses?”

Indeed, the last question raises pedagogical issues of course design, instruction, and assessment and how—or if—these issues can be used to enhance students’ experience of academic rigor at Buffalo State.