Are We Preparing Students for College?

My pedagogy is rife with “buzzwords.”

For example, I aim to “meet students where they are.”  I do this by providing “culturally relevant content”  that I often “chunk” into smaller parts. This “enhances understanding.” 

I also love giving students “choice” over what they do. This helps turn students into “self-directed learners.”

And when I grade students, I have a “no-zero policy.” Giving a zero on an assignment is not part of “equitable grading.” I prioritize “mastery” of the content, not just completion. 

All these buzzwords sound good.

And teachers are trained PD after PD after PD on how to incorporate them into their lessons.

And maybe learning these buzzwords leads to effective, empowering, and evidence-based teaching practices.

However, here is the problem:

College professors speak a different pedagogical language.

For the past semester, I watched 11th and 12th graders take an “Intro to Psychology” course in my classroom. 

A professor came from a local college and taught the class at our high school.

It was a disaster.

Out of 22 students, one passed with a B-.

Seven students received a D or F.

The rest dropped out.

The professor was kind, helpful, caring, and did everything in her power to help students earn a passing grade and attain college credit.

She let students turn in work late.

She repeated directions.

She was open to students needing extra help.

She was the perfect professor to help high school students get a taste of college, earn college credit, and build their academic confidence.

Here was the problem.

Students were incapable of listening to a lecture, taking notes, reading on their own, and passing exams.

Listening to a lecture required students to focus.

Most couldn’t. After five minutes of listening to the professor speak, students were watching Instagram reels on their phones. When I forced students to put their phones away, they stared aimlessly at the wall.

Taking notes required students to pinpoint useful information that could be included on an exam.

Most couldn’t. Their notes were simply scribbles on paper. The idea that the notes were there to help students retain knowledge for an exam weeks or months away eluded them.

Reading on their own required students to do homework and be accountable for their learning.

Most couldn’t. Students refused to read. The belief was that they would pass anyways, so why read?

Passing the final exam required students to synthesize their ideas from the semester, and demonstrate their knowledge on a test.

Most couldn’t.

In summary, students thought they could skip assignments and just do the ones they “felt like doing.”  They were flabbergasted how a missing assignment could hurt their grade so badly. 

Students said they gave up on learning because the lessons were “boring.”

Many students were surprised that they “did most of the work,” yet failed.

A few students called the professor “mean,” for giving them bad grades.

These students were used to lessons being more “culturally relevant,” and “chunked” in a way that allowed them to better understand the material. 

For example, before I introduce a text to students, I typically identify difficult vocabulary words.

We look up the word meanings, complete a Frayer model graphic organizer, and play a game with the words.

The lessons move slowly, methodically, and are set up for students to succeed.

This, however, is not how college works.

College follows a simple and “old school” formula:

Listen to a lecture, take notes, complete the required reading, then write an essay or take an exam.

If our goal is to build students that are “college ready,” maybe we should drop some of the buzzwords that litter our teaching, and teach in a way that resembles the pedagogical practices of colleges and universities.