Course Structure and Instructor Responsiveness Matter

Why?

A well-designed, “high structure” course can benefit all learners. High structure courses are those that have “clear learning goals, regular in-class exercises that promote student participation, and frequent out-of-class assignments that promote practice and preparation” (Beck & Roosa, 2020). Higher levels of course structure may foster a stronger sense of classroom community and more engagement among learners, both inside and outside of the classroom. There is also some empirical evidence that increased course structure is associated with reductions in the so-called “achievement gap” between first-generation and continuing education learners (Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Shaffer, 2024).

How?

• Prepare a clear syllabus with a detailed weekly schedule, including course due dates.
• Build assignments and other course activities into Canvas and use the due date feature.
• Open parts of your Canvas course at least one week ahead of the course start date so students can preview the syllabus and get course materials ahead of time.
• Incorporate active learning: for class meetings, ensure that about 20-40% of the class time is structured for students to be working together on course activities. For online courses, intentionally structure student-to-student interactions. Getting involved in The Rutgers Active Learning Community is a great way to get started if you’re interested in learning about active learning approaches.
• If your course structure and size allow, conduct weekly lower stakes assessments (graded or ungraded). When well designed, these frequent lower stakes assessments can provide critical and timely feedback to support learning, allowing learners to understand what they are doing well and what they still need to do in order to be successful in the course. This high structure element in a course can benefit first-generation learners, as well as all students experiencing the course.

See these two resources for more information on lower-stakes assessments.

• DePaul University, Center for Teaching and Learning. Low-Stakes Assignments. DePaul University. 
• Eberly Center Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation. Frequent Low-Stakes Assignments. Carnegie Mellon University.

References

Beck, E. J., & Roosa, K. A. (2020). Designing high structure courses to promote student engagement. HAPS EDucator, 10.21692/haps.2020.019

Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468. 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050

Shaffer, J. F. (2024). High structure course design for chemical engineering. Chemical Engineering Education, 58(1), 22–28. 10.18260/2-1-370.660-131875

Why?

Many of the standard ways we’re used to approaching grading, assignments, and other aspects of course design date back to a time when it could be assumed that most students could focus on school without attending to domestic responsibilities or holding down a job (Malone, 2021). This puts first-generation students, who are more likely to have these additional responsibilities (Wilbur, et al., 2016), at a structural disadvantage. It’s not possible for us as individual instructors to address all the structural inequalities in higher education, of course; but there are some simple steps we can take to build responsiveness and flexibility into our courses.

How?

• We can preemptively be responsive to the realities of students’ lives by developing an attendance policy that allows for a certain number of missed classes without penalty.
• Similarly, we can preemptively be responsive in our grading system by dropping the lowest assignment in a particular category, such as dropping the lowest quiz, weekly homework assignment, reading check, etc.
• Check in on how the course is going. Conducting an anonymous mid-course survey provides insight about how students are experiencing the course. Students will see your responsiveness if you discuss the results with them after conducting the survey. When warranted, you may make some adjustments for the second half of the semester. If you decide not to make adjustments based on the survey results, it can be helpful to explain why you made that decision. 
• Develop an “extension without penalty” framework (Ruesch & Sarvary, 2024). While the framework can vary based on classroom contexts, the key idea is that all students are allowed an extension. This effectively takes the burden off the student in having to ask (as some students may feel more comfortable asking for an extension than others), and avoids instructors’ unconscious bias being inserted into the granting of extensions since they are available for everyone. For example:

…a syllabus was designed that involved an “extension without penalty” (EWP) for many assignments…The syllabus explicitly identified a suggested due date by which the students were encouraged to complete the assignment and the EWP due date. The syllabus includes the following statement: “We understand that there can be circumstances when students need more time to complete their assignments. All assignments have ideal due dates, and they also have extension due dates. We highly recommend that you submit the assignments (if you can) by their suggested ideal due dates, to maintain a good rhythm of learning in the class. You can submit assignments by the extension due date without any penalty. We are providing the extension due dates so you can use them for certain times when you have other exams, sickness, or you just simply need a break and you do not want to think about an assignment.” During the early introduction of the system within the classroom, instructors were encouraged to stress the advantages of completing the work by the ideal due date but confirm that the EWP was available for flexibility. (Ruesch & Sarvary, 2024)

References

Malone, D. (Host). (2021, July 15th). Teaching first-year and first-generation students: A conversation with Lisa Nunn [Audio podcast episode]. In Academic life. New Books Network. https://newbooksnetwork.com/teaching-first-year-and-first-generation-students-a-conversation-with-lisa-nunn

McMurtrie, B. (2022, June 30). Teaching: Staying flexible without becoming overwhelmed. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/teaching/2022-06-30

Ruesch, J. M., & Sarvary, M. A. (2024). Structure and flexibility: Systemic and explicit assignment extensions foster an inclusive learning environment. Frontiers in Education, 910.3389/feduc.2024.1324506

Wilbur, T. G., & Roscigno, V. J. (2016). First-generation disadvantage and college enrollment/completion. Socius, 2, 237802311666435. 10.1177/2378023116664351