Due Dates

The Due Date Dilemma

Assignment due dates are such a staple of traditional learning environments that many faculty have never actively considered their role, value, or impact on student learning. But shifts in student-centered pedagogy are challenging long-standing practices and pushing faculty to revisit the issue of assignment deadlines.

Historically, students submitted their paper assignments to professors at the beginning of a scheduled class; this practice made sense based on shared schedules and proximity. Within this context, assignment deadlines were generally driven by the convenience of the professor rather than a pedagogical imperative. But electronic communication and the wide-spread prevalence of learning management systems (LMS) have changed how assignments are typically submitted. In our modern classroom, students can submit online to the LMS at any time. This shift opens a range of possibilities for the use of deadlines… and challenges our reliance on traditional due date practices.

Concerns with Traditional Due Date Structures

Student-centered pedagogies argue that rigid assignment deadlines:

  1. Are not pedagogically driven. Due dates tend to be primarily designed for faculty convenience rather than to foster student learning. In many learning contexts, assignment deadlines are arbitrary milestones that have little, if any, relevance to the learning process. Inherent in this concern is a clear understanding of the purpose of grades. If grades are reflective of student learning (rather than student adherence to timelines), a grade shouldn’t be lower for equivalent learning demonstrated at the same level a few days later.

  2. Discriminate against certain student populations. Critics of due dates highlight that strict deadlines are inequitable and unfairly disadvantage students from some social classes and backgrounds. As such, rigid late policies perpetuate inequalities in access and inclusion and create additional burdens for students who may already be struggling more than their peers. Even requiring students to ask for an extension may create inequalities as this option is not equally comfortable (or known) to all students.

  3. Foster a didactic learning environment. Due dates promote a didactic learning environment that reinforces faculty power and authority over students. Rather than encouraging students to be active collaborators in their own learning; strict deadlines reiterate that students must be responsive to faculty mandates.

  4. Contribute to increasing mental health concerns. Students today are struggling. They are burnt out, overwhelmed, and increasingly dealing with mental health issues (particularly anxiety and depression). They are over-committed and struggling to balance work, school, and life. As assignments pile up and due dates are missed, they are likely to simply check-out… disappear… drop out. A cycle that only contributes to ongoing concerns with student retention in higher education.

Traditional deadlines assume the worst about students. They imply that students are unable (or unwilling) to prioritize their time to submit assignments in a timely manner. But this assumption fails to consider the realistic challenges students are facing. Compounding the issue is the reality that rigid due dates (and associated late policies) perpetuate the exact issues that faculty loathe… poor quality work, disappearing students, and academic dishonesty.

Student-Centered Due Dates

In contrast, student-centered pedagogies challenge faculty to revisit and evaluate how assignment deadlines can be modified to be more equitable, supportive, and flexible within the larger teaching and learning context. When faced with the opportunity to introduce flexible due dates, there are a number of common faculty arguments that arise. These arguments and their counterarguments are highlighted in the following table:

Arguments Against Flexible Deadlines

  • Faculty will be buried with last-minute submissions at the end of the term.

  • Students will procrastinate and be unable to complete all assignments with meaningful learning.

  • Students lack metacognitive skills to stay on track without deadlines.

  • Flexible dates make the course less rigorous and encourage grade inflation.

  • Deadlines are “real life.” Students need to learn how to manage their time to meet them.

  • Flexible deadlines are too challenging for instructor workflow.

Counterarguments Supporting Flexible Deadlines

  • Faculty using flexible due dates report that most students are on time or within a reasonable grace period; as such, there are only a few students who need individualized accommodations. There are rare situations in which students do fall too far behind and either withdraw, fail, or take an incomplete.

  • Flexible due dates emphasize student-centered mastery learning. When the goal is for all students to reach mastery (and a structure is in place to promote this), there will be a positive skewing of grades that reflect more students meeting the learning objectives.

  • “Real life” typically offers flexibility and some level of autonomy in managing deadlines and priorities.

  • Fixed, rigid deadlines (and late policies) prioritize instructor convenience over student learning.

Benefits of Flexible Due Dates

Proponents of flexible and adaptable deadline policies note many benefits. Flexible due dates:

  • Reduce student stress while maximizing opportunities for student success

  • Enhance retention as students are less likely to drop if they can catch up

  • Prevent an all-or-none student mentality that contributes to anxiety and disappearing

  • Accommodate individual learning preferences and abilities in relation to the pace of work

  • Reduce the pressure to cheat

  • Foster a growth mindset

  • Support student agency in allowing some voice and choice in their educational activities

  • Enable freedom and autonomy to adjust deadlines to produce the best work across competing obligations

  • Offer students a meaningful voice within the teaching and learning dynamic

  • Encourage the development of deadline management and prioritization skills

Flexible Due Date Strategies

When considering adapting due date policies to be more student-centered, there is a spectrum of possibilities. Faculty need to consider the specifics of each class to guide what is most effective in each context. Due date policies should be aligned with learning objectives, the importance of knowledge or skill sequencing within the curriculum, assignment scaffolding, class size, faculty workload, and any other relevant practical or pedagogical factors. With these contextual considerations in mind, there are a range of options to integrate flexible deadlines.

  • Individualized mastery learning. There are no deadlines (beyond the scheduled end of the course). Each student moves through the course material at their own pace. Students must demonstrate mastery of learning objectives in the established order.

  • Sequenced course calendar. Students are given suggested pacing and order of activities, but there are no deadlines (beyond the scheduled end of the course). Milestones are offered for guidance with no penalty for moving slower or faster than suggested.

  • Recommended due date with a hard deadline. Students are provided with a recommended due date; submission by this due date will guarantee feedback that they can use if they wish to resubmit. In addition, there is a hard deadline that everyone must submit regardless of whether they received feedback.

  • Due dates with a standard grace period. Due dates are set with a designated grace period. No grade penalties if assignments are submitted within the grace period.

  • Late pass. All students are provided a late pass that they can use at their discretion to submit assignments after the due date with no penalty.

  • Individual student contract. Students establish their own deadlines and submit a contract specifying when they will submit assignments. May be used in conjunction with submission windows established by the instructor.

  • Submission window. Students are given a window of time (for example, two weeks) in which they can turn in assignments at any point during the window for full credit.

  • Negotiated due dates. A collaborative process that considers both the needs of the faculty member and the students (can be done as a class or with individual students); emphasizes the importance of shared ownership.

Inherent in the integration of flexible deadlines is giving students autonomy, power, and choice within their own learning environment. Flexible due date policies embrace an empathic teaching approach that considers the whole student: their situation, their life, and the obligations they are juggling. It provides a more equitable learning structure that respects the needs of individual students while promoting a mature approach to learning and deadline management. The key is not to abandon structure altogether, but to be intentional in balancing flexibility and structure to maximize learning success for all students.

Self-Reflection Questions

  1. What kind of climate do my due date policies create?

  2. What is the rationale for my due date policy?

  3. How do the due dates impact the student learning experience?

  4. How might the due dates impact individual students in different ways?

  5. What hidden messages are conveyed to students as a function of due date policies?

  6. Are my due date policies reflective of my teaching philosophy?

Page author: Jean Mandernach

Citation: Mandernach, B. J., Ford, D., Xu, Y. & Shi, T. (2022). Post-pandemic teaching and learning: Revisiting common practices. https://sites.google.com/view/revisitingcommonpractices