Students Skipping Class
September 1, 2023
Congratulations on making it through the frantic first two weeks of the semester. This week I continue discussing the issue of low-class attendance that many of you have been experiencing. This issue is integrally connected with the topic of the CNS MTI workshop this coming Tuesday, September 5 from noon to 1 PM (come at 11:30 AM for a free lunch) in room 322 LSC. This tip is based on an The Chronicle of Higher Education “Teaching” newsletter by Beckie Supiano published July 13, 2023. Interestingly, this article ties back to mitigating burnout.
When students miss out
Recently, we asked what stubborn teaching challenges you’re facing. Two readers responded with thoughtful questions on class attendance. Beth and I covered this issue regularly during the pandemic, when absences skyrocketed. Clearly the challenge still remains well after classes have returned to in-person instruction.
This week, I’m sharing those readers’ questions. And I asked Lindsay Masland, director of transformative teaching and learning and a professor of psychology at Appalachian State University, to respond. Masland, who uses she/they pronouns, was an expert panelist in our Keep on Teaching series — you may recall her observation about the cat and the sweater. They graciously agreed to share some advice.
Leslie Tuttle, an associate professor of history at Louisiana State University, asked, “What do we know about student engagement and attendance as we emerge further from the pandemic years? My colleagues and I noticed significant problems with attendance this past term — as if a certain percentage of students have just decided they want the option to do courses from their dorm room, and are willing to accept grade penalties for not coming to class as the cost of their preference.”
Tuttle continued, “All the work I’ve read suggests that there are two basic methods for increasing class attendance. First, make being in class obviously valuable to student learning. Second, hold students accountable by keeping track of attendance. I’ve tried to do both (and grade data from my classes suggest students who don’t come to class are unlikely to pass even if there’s not a penalty for high numbers of absences). And yet… it seems like this particular cohort of students who finished high school and started college during the pandemic is especially resistant to in-person instruction and active learning. I’m not talking about missing three or four classes in a semester. I’m talking substantial numbers not there more than half of the time. This is really hampering my efforts to implement active-learning strategies, which are critical to my course goals. What is going on with these students? What can instructors do to get them more motivated to re-engage? Or are these students who just need to be funneled into alternative forms of classes?”
Tracie Lee, a lecturer in supply chain and business analytics at Boise State University, shared that “pre-pandemic, I had 85- to 95-percent attendance. I taught online only for a couple of years, and two semesters ago, began teaching face-to-face. Attendance has plummeted. I’m not alone — my colleagues report 40-percent to 80-percent attendance levels. We have online options, but students choose to sign up for the face-to-face class and then… don’t come. What are others doing to encourage attendance? It’s not that I want to force students to come to class because I’m so awesome they should want to be there for me. It’s because they’re missing out on all the social bonds they could be forming with their peers; they’re losing the active component of learning by being able to reflect in the moment, discuss with one another, ask questions, do the work while we are all together. And they’ve chosen NOT to take the class online!”
Lee described trying a bunch of things to help students, including adding active-engagement techniques and emailing students to express concern. “Most thanked me for reaching out, but didn’t change their behavior.”
Here is how Masland responded:
Whew, this is a tough one. In addition to the strategies these folks already mentioned, I’d only add two things. First, I’d suggest that we put a lot of thought into not only the first day of class, but also the first two weeks of class because this time period is when students build their understanding of “what the deal is” with your course. If they learn that coming to class makes their life better/easier in the long run (because they understand concepts better, because they get better help that way, because they get points for it, etc.), they will be more likely to continue coming. Begin as you intend to go on, as they say.
Second is being super intentional about your in-class activities. This means creating activities that work even when you only have a few groups present. My own favorite for this is when the first phase of an activity has students create some sort of case study or other real-world application of a concept, and then the second phase is passing it off to another group to work with. It’s better if you have lots of groups, but works with as few as two. Additionally, in the first week, I create a series of in-class groupings that we return to class after class. I have two sets of groupings — I call them “color groups” and “animal groups.” One set is based on interest-group similarities and the other based on intra-group differences. I use them a lot in the beginning so that students start to make bonds with those folks. And then in subsequent weeks, I might email to say, “Make sure to come to class today as we’ll be doing this superfun XYZ thing in animal groups.” Some students won’t want to let down their group members, so this encourages some to show. And if not enough group members show, I can always make a mash-up of small groups in the moment.
But here’s the most important thing… our needs around supporting engagement are outpacing the research right now. Everything I am seeing as a consulting editor for teaching journals focuses on the assessment of motivation and engagement of students in the early years of the pandemic. We have almost nothing that is evidence-based about right now, at least not yet. So I think the main thing we need to keep in mind is that if we are doing what the existing research shows about engagement — keeping track of their attendance so we can support the strugglers, shifting to active learning, having in-class activities that clearly connect to course success (through points or other means) — then what we are doing is *good enough*. We’re not superheroes here — we are normal people working in a tough system that lacks the information and support to do much better than *good enough* at the moment. And although this is an uncomfortable truth for many of us, especially those of us who are deeply committed to student success, this is the reality. If we still want to be in this career years after we figure all of this out, we have to make reasonable, self-informed choices right now that set us up for sustainability and not burnout.”
It is just a feeling based on the energy and vibe I am getting around campus right now, but perhaps the students have moved on from their post pandemic funk. Another topic related to student attendance and engagement and brought up in the Provost candidate forum presented by our own Jan Nerger this past Monday; are faculty working at home too much making them less accessible to students? Full disclosure, I am working at home today. I think this topic connects with burn-out mitigation, as well. That is enough for this week. Hope to see you next Tuesday. Enjoy the long Labor Day holiday weekend.
Cheers, Paul
Paul Laybourn (he/him/his)Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyDirector, W2R S-STEM ProgramDirector, NoCo B2B ProgramDirector, REU Site in Molecular Biosciencespaul.laybourn@colostate.edu970-491-5100
