Individual Differences
Students differ from each other in multiple dimensions—for example, in their identities, stages of development, and personal histories—and these differences influences how they experience the world and, in turn, their learning and performance
By Michele DiPietro
Of course each student is unique. But what research confirms over and over is that student differences, far from being irrelevant, impact learning.
While the other principles of learning focus on the commonalities of the learning
process (for instance, everybody benefits from practice; everybody can use feedback),
the first principle focuses on the differences. Of course each student is unique.
But what research confirms over and over is that student differences, far from being
irrelevant, impact learning. For instance, where students are in their development
(that is, their maturity) determines how deeply they can process the content. And
the identities and histories of each student have likely shaped how they have been
treated by society, shaping their expectations of what is possible for them.
Identity Characteristics
Students differ in many respects, such as age, gender, race, sexuality, socioeconomic
status, ability, religious beliefs, and so on. In addition to these demographic characteristics,
other identities are salient to each student, such as their veteran, athlete, first
gen, or Greek system status. It is important to note that the brain does not present
observable differences along these identity lines, save for learning disabilities.
Therefore, in a neutral world, these identities might not matter. But in the world
we live in, they do matter, in measurable ways (Lovett et al. 2023). Students who
have been stereotyped all their life report the psychological pressures those stereotypes
exert on them, taking energy away from learning. Students who have been bullied, ridiculed,
or discounted through their primary and secondary education, might have formed expectations
about their college years that limit how they are willing to engage with the material.
Students from different cultures might communicate in ways that are seen as less valid
in our culture, impacting their ability to have their contributions recognized in
full. The literature documents many more instances of how learning and performance
can be impacted by a student’s own background. If the requirement for being an effective
instructor is to understand all the possible backgrounds and identities students bring
to the table and all the ways in which those might impact their learning, good instructors
would be few and far between. Instead of being overwhelmed by this body of scholarship,
our best bet is to ensure students understand that we do not behave as if all students
came from our same background, shared the same cultural differences, and nurtured
the same aspirations as ourselves. Who are my students? If that is our guiding question,
and the starting point of our teaching that we approach with curiosity, empathy, and
flexibility, it will show the students the powerful message that they belong in our
course.
Levels of Development
Research shows that the developmental gains students make in college dwarf the gains
in knowledge (Mayhew et al. 2016). Students are developing autonomy, confidence and
a sense they can handle life challenges, interpersonal skills, integrity, a sense
of purpose, sophisticated epistemologies, and a positive sense of their gender, racial,
and other social class identities.
How do humans develop? Research shows that we move forward along our trajectory when
life’s challenges reveal the inadequacies of our current ways of thinking and coping
and draw us to develop more sophisticated ones. This insight is important for us as
we design the pedagogical challenges in our courses. If students do not feel challenged
enough, they will feel no need to move forward; if the challenge feels unsurmountable,
they will foreclose development and possibly even regress. Here, out of all the dimensions
of development, we will focus on intellectual development.
Intellectual development. Researchers in this area have tried to map trajectories for students’ conceptions
of what it means to learn and to know something, and consequently for the role of
the teachers and learners at each stage. Of course, student go through a great deal
of maturation already in primary and secondary schools, but their epistemologies might
still be unsophisticated for the kind of intellectual effort college requires.
At the lowest level, students might be in a position called Dualism, or Received Knowledge (Perry 1997; Belenky et al. 1984). In this view, the world is easily partitioned
in true and false facts, and to know something means to memorize all the true facts
about the topic. The role of the professor is to provide all the facts, and the role
of the students is to regurgitate them back on the day of the test.
The existence of enduring issues for which we do not have one right answer or viewpoint
is frustrating and eventually ushers in the next stage, Multiplicity or Subjective Knowledge. Here, to know something means to memorize all the different, sometimes opposite,
perspectives on the issue. While this transition is frustrating, it brings in the
realization that people might have valid points even when they disagree, and the empowering
possibility that one might disagree with the textbook and the professor, making learning
a personal exercise.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but some opinions are better than others,
depending on the evidence they are based. This realization propels students to the
next stage, Relativism or Contextual Knowledge. This is a qualitative shift, in that knowledge now is not defined by the number
of facts accumulated, but by the ability to justify one’s positions and connect pieces,
interpret findings, draw inferences, argue a case, research missing pieces and in
general think critically. At this stage, professors who bring in multiple perspectives
and probe students’ thinking are met with appreciation rather than the exasperation
of the previous stages.
The danger of this stage is intellectual paralysis, because no perspective is perfect
and a relativistic outlook is acutely aware of the limits of each perspective. But
in order to act in the world, students need to commit to one perspective over others
and use it. The Commitment is provisional, and could change if new information emerges. This brings people full
circle to picking one perspective over the others, but not in the blind fashion of
the dualistic stage. Rather it is a nuanced position, so sophisticated in fact that
only a minuscule percentage of students reaches it in the college years.
Asset-Based Approaches
Instructors already have to keep up with the evolving content in their fast-paced
fields. If the result of reading about student differences is merely to add dimensions
of knowledge to incorporate in one’s teaching—and this documents barely scratches
the surface of that literature—the result would be quickly overwhelming. Indeed, many
instructors approach this topic with the question “how do I deal with X and Y groups
of students in my course?” One could enroll in semester long graduate courses on
student development, and even that might not be enough to answer the question. So
let’s not move with that question. Let’s not start from the implication that the variety
of students in our courses is a problem to solve. If we flip this stance, we can treat
the diversity of our students as an asset to our teaching. A diversity of student
experiences means a diversity of perspectives to contribute to our courses. If we
create an environment where everybody feels their contributions are welcome and needed,
(see principle #7) the result will boost the collective learning. In fact, studies confirm that, when
working in groups, the diversity of the problem-solvers matters more than their individual
ability (Page 2008). The positive outlook from an asset-based approach, grounded with
the strategies from the other principles of learning, will create a better learning
experience for all of our students.
References
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Lovett, M. C., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Ambrose, S. A., & Norman, M. K. (2023). How learning works: 8 research-based principles for smart teaching (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Mayhew, M., Rockenbach, A., Bowman, N., Seifert, T., Wolniak, G., Pascarella, E.,
and Terenzini, P. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that
higher education works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Page, S. (2008) The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups,
firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
Perry, W. (1997). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
