Teaching Tip: The Course Contract (A Research Note)
by Jen Hartman, Ph.D. and Charisse T.M. Coston, Ph.D.
Higher educational institutions have placed a high premium on student retention (see Glass and Harrington, 2002). Such prioritization has resulted in motivating professors to implement a variety of interventions in hopes of successfully retaining and graduating students. Towards that end, teachers seek to develop learning tools that can be easily implemented and evaluated. A teaching tool technique that can increase communication and responsibility among professor and student is the course contract. Historically, the course syllabus serves as the primary communication mechanism (Eberly, Newton, & Wiggins, 2001), however, the syllabus as a static document, is prescribed by the professor for the student. Along the lines of encouraging a more didactic leaning environment, the course contract is an amenable solution for those looking to promote dynamic learning skills. Specifically, the course contract is a mechanism which promotes mutual respect and a greater sense of commitment to the course as both professor and student are involved in its implementation. Having students and teachers conform to a code of course expectations is an effective strategy for incorporating overall course standards.
Although the professor who has the responsibility for teaching the course develops the contract, both students and their professors sign the contract, which sets the norm for class management. Sample student expectations may include expectations of: punctuality and class attendance, active participation during class discussions, taking copious notes, appropriate dress and cleanliness, means of respectful commenting and questioning. A contract can be used as a means to encourage students to be informed about paying attention to their body language (e.g., mannerisms), their work ethic, the need for them to follow their progress toward a grade for the course and the effective use of assistance and support from outside course resources.
Unlike a traditional syllabus, incorporated into this written document are student expectations of the professor, as well as course expectations. General expectations that students have of the course instructor and course can be: providing feedback before project deadlines, organizing and facilitating in-class discussions, respect for all students points of view, returning papers and examinations in a timely fashion, including comments on returned papers, being on time for class and present for office hours, acknowledging all students who want to participate in discussions and/or have questions about subject material. Additional responsibilities of teachers with regard to student concerns can involve adapting themselves to the various learning styles of students, paying attention to the costs of textbooks and readers for the course including copying fees, using effective body language, and being approachable by using a kind and non-threatening manner.
Professors can solicit assistance in developing course contracts by using focus groups of students and faculty to generate a list of expectations, for both students and teachers. Preliminary data which compare course outcomes in those courses that use course contracts are encouraging (Audette 2007). Thus far, Audette (2007) reports overall higher compliance rates of teacher expectations. Further, student preparedness and attendance reflected in these early results are extremely high compared to results in classes without course contracts (Audette 2007). A drawback of utilizing course contracts is what to do in cases of non-compliance; although absolute non-compliance on the part of students and/or professors is unlikely.
In conclusion, while higher educational institutions have placed a high premium on student retention use of dynamic teaching techniques can help achieve this goal. The use of a course contract can be an effective strategy to engage students in an active learning environment while also setting expectations of the professor.
References
Audette, R.H. (2007). Preliminary Results from Using a Course Contract. Unpublished manuscript.
Eberly, M.B., Newton, S.E. and Wiggins, R.A. (2001). "The Syllabus as a Tool for Student-Centered Learning." The Journal of General Education. 50(1):56-74.
Glass, J. C., Jr. and Harrington, A. R. (2002). "Academic Performance of Community College Transfer Student and "Native" Students at a Large State University." Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 26(5):413-430.
*We would like to acknowledge the support from those who organized and participated in a week long workshop (May 14-18, 2007): Engaging Freshman in Large Introductory Classes by the Summer Institute, in which we participated and from which a number of ideas from this paper were adopted. Organizers of this workshop (all from The University of North Carolina at Charlotte) include: Dr. Sallie M. Ives, Dr. Anita Blowers, and Ms. Charlynn Ross, Director, University Center for Academic Excellence.
Contact Information
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Criminal Justice Department
Charlotte, North Carolina 28223
704.687.2562
Email Charisse T.M. Coston
Email Jen Hartman