I don't disagree with anything in this piece. What I find really interesting is the assumption that those of us who are advocating for caring pedagogy, grounded in a balance b/t support and challenge, have at any point become less rigorous.
And that to me is the mark of #ToxicRigor. When someone points to flexibility, humanizing, and support and says, "You're dumbing things down" or "You've sacrificed rigor," there's just no evidence of that, so something else is up.
And those somethings to me are ableism, racism, and classism. Caring pedagogy removes barriers to success and disrupts power structures. It opens doors. #ToxicRigor wants to keep those doors closed.
I have had very close looks at the content and approaches of hundreds of faculty using caring pedagogy, and to imply that their courses are not challenging and rigorous is nonsense.
I also think we need to disentangle rigor/challenge from meeting deadlines. I know a lot of wicked smart people that can't meet a deadline to save their lives. They're all faculty.
I'm doing some research this morning on long-term collective traumas...
So many people are saying to me that they feel like they're at a breaking point, along with everyone around them. That they feel worse, not better. I thought this @insidehighered piece captured this really well (thank you students).
@insidehighered This idea that while we're managing individual crises, that everyone around us seems to be too. The whole of this is greater than the sum of its parts. What do we know about collective traumas that can guide us through this?
"But now it’s just expected and understood: everyone is just one minor event away from snapping. COVID scares can trigger existential crises and then ripple effects. Why ask each other “How are you?” when nothing has changed in almost two years?"
Okay before I share any of this, for the record, I'm not actually critiquing HyFlex. HyFlex, bless its heart, is fine. What I'm critiquing is #HigherEd's continued reliance on garbage can decision making.
While there are some exceptions, I've yet to see any compelling data or argument that HyFlex is better than a well-designed, fully online course taught by an awesome online educator. And the costs in terms of faculty stress and the tech being poured into it continue to amass...
I'm going to try to use this thread to aggregate data on HyFlex. If you know of any, please chime in.
Of course, we already have oodles of data on what works for student retention and completion (wraparound support, supporting faculty in their pedagogy), but I digress...
I guess I'm wondering what problems we're actually trying to solve here, or if we have garbage can decision making at play (solutions seeking problems).
Is the problem declining enrollments? Is the problem a lecture-based model that disengages learners? Is the problem students lacking transportation to campus? Is the problem that rigid, solely in-person models make attendance difficult for working students, parents?
I went to bed last night really angry and frustrated that people are still forcing learners to be on camera...
At this point I wonder if the holdouts are people we can get through to, who are just in need of more support and information about the science of teaching and learning, or if they are committed to their own ignorance? Is it worth continuing the conversation?
Anyway, sometimes you continue the conversation not because you believe it will change someone's mind, but because of what will happen to you if you don't keep speaking your mind, I guess.