The Atlantic: The "Dead" Syllabus

[jerseyjay]

I'm on a committee that has been asked to "standardize the syllabus" for [baskets 101].  It's going to be, ah, interesting.  There is a really, really wide variety of how students are evaluated.  Formative assessments are from 0-30% of the grade, number of exams is 2-5, etc. 
I anticipate progress will be slow.

For my department, we have been talking about something similar for survey courses that multiple sections are offered each semester, often largely taught by part-time professors. But this does not mean making everybody teach the same syllabus, but rather (a) making sure that the same content is covered so that somebody who passes Basket 101 will be ready to take Basket 102, etc; and (b) setting ranges for evaluations (e.g., in your case, formative assessments should be no more than a third of the grade; essays should be no more than a third of the grade; etc.)

[the_geneticist]

I'm on a committee that has been asked to "standardize the syllabus" for [baskets 101].  It's going to be, ah, interesting.  There is a really, really wide variety of how students are evaluated.  Formative assessments are from 0-30% of the grade, number of exams is 2-5, etc. 
I anticipate progress will be slow.

Can you just standardize the outcomes, topics and suggested textbook? And suggest/give examples of assessments without requiring them?

I'm on a committee that has been asked to "standardize the syllabus" for [baskets 101].  It's going to be, ah, interesting.  There is a really, really wide variety of how students are evaluated.  Formative assessments are from 0-30% of the grade, number of exams is 2-5, etc. 
I anticipate progress will be slow.

For my department, we have been talking about something similar for survey courses that multiple sections are offered each semester, often largely taught by part-time professors. But this does not mean making everybody teach the same syllabus, but rather (a) making sure that the same content is covered so that somebody who passes Basket 101 will be ready to take Basket 102, etc; and (b) setting ranges for evaluations (e.g., in your case, formative assessments should be no more than a third of the grade; essays should be no more than a third of the grade; etc.)

I think the first item of business ought to be determining what we mean by "standardize". 

I anticipate this will be the hardest step. 

Same learning goals, list of topics that are essential, suggested textbook, and ranges for evaluation all seem quite reasonable to me.  I do think that if the class has a discussion, that the discussion needs to be part of the grade (or else why would students bother). 

For the sake of sanity in the labs, it would be very preferable that the order of topics is the same in all lectures since we don't have the capacity to teach different lab modules in the same week.

The department chair is insisting that this happens.  I figure it's their hill to die on as far as checking what folks actually are doing.

[quasihumanist]

The department chair is insisting that this happens.  I figure it's their hill to die on as far as checking what folks actually are doing.

For a large-ish department, this usually isn't very hard for a chair who is willing to take the path of least resistance and not worry too much about what is fair, whatever that means.

Instructors who have never taught the class before are usually more than willing to take a textbook and a course outline and just implement it - it means that they don't have to think about these overall, strategic, questions and can focus on the tactical details of how to teach or assess a particular topic, do the grading, and so on.  As they get more experienced, they can take it up with the course coordinator about how to do things, and as long as everyone agrees, or the deviations aren't too big, it's fine.

So, if you simply take instructors who deviate too much from the standard and assign them to another course, replacing them with folks who haven't taught the course before, you solve the problem.

[ciao_yall]

The department chair is insisting that this happens.  I figure it's their hill to die on as far as checking what folks actually are doing.

For a large-ish department, this usually isn't very hard for a chair who is willing to take the path of least resistance and not worry too much about what is fair, whatever that means.

Instructors who have never taught the class before are usually more than willing to take a textbook and a course outline and just implement it - it means that they don't have to think about these overall, strategic, questions and can focus on the tactical details of how to teach or assess a particular topic, do the grading, and so on.  As they get more experienced, they can take it up with the course coordinator about how to do things, and as long as everyone agrees, or the deviations aren't too big, it's fine.

So, if you simply take instructors who deviate too much from the standard and assign them to another course, replacing them with folks who haven't taught the course before, you solve the problem.

I took over a class from a previous instructor that was, frankly, a hot mess. Among other issues, the previous instructor was teaching a software that hadn't been supported by the company for 10 years and did not match current practice. And, the textbook he had been using made sense for the course title, but had nothing to do with his actual syllabus.

However, when the new Chair came in and observed me, she didn't like the way I had updated the class. So... she pulled it from me in the 2nd week of the new semester when I told her I was going to keep teaching it "my way."

Poor guy who got stuck with it had to search around for a legit source to download the aforementioned software as well as figure out why the Chair-approved syllabus didn't seem to have anything to do with the textbook for the class.

Big mess for the students as well.

[Caracal]

The department chair is insisting that this happens.  I figure it's their hill to die on as far as checking what folks actually are doing.

For a large-ish department, this usually isn't very hard for a chair who is willing to take the path of least resistance and not worry too much about what is fair, whatever that means.

Instructors who have never taught the class before are usually more than willing to take a textbook and a course outline and just implement it - it means that they don't have to think about these overall, strategic, questions and can focus on the tactical details of how to teach or assess a particular topic, do the grading, and so on.  As they get more experienced, they can take it up with the course coordinator about how to do things, and as long as everyone agrees, or the deviations aren't too big, it's fine.

So, if you simply take instructors who deviate too much from the standard and assign them to another course, replacing them with folks who haven't taught the course before, you solve the problem.

I took over a class from a previous instructor that was, frankly, a hot mess. Among other issues, the previous instructor was teaching a software that hadn't been supported by the company for 10 years and did not match current practice. And, the textbook he had been using made sense for the course title, but had nothing to do with his actual syllabus.

However, when the new Chair came in and observed me, she didn't like the way I had updated the class. So... she pulled it from me in the 2nd week of the new semester when I told her I was going to keep teaching it "my way."

Poor guy who got stuck with it had to search around for a legit source to download the aforementioned software as well as figure out why the Chair-approved syllabus didn't seem to have anything to do with the textbook for the class.

Big mess for the students as well.

Man that is some terrible management. A chair shouldn't really be dictating the way a course is taught like that in the first place, unless they are enforcing the decisions of the entire department. Otherwise, it's an abuse of their power to assign courses. Setting that aside, however, if the chair thinks it's important that a course be taught in a certain way, or that it needs to use a certain syllabus, they need to make that clear at the time they hire someone or assign them the course. And then they should require pre-approval of the syllabus. What kind of loon shows up on the second week of courses, demands the syllabus and structure of an ongoing course be changed, and when they get told that doesn't work, removes the instructor, replaces them with someone else and switches the entire syllabus around?

[ciao_yall]

The department chair is insisting that this happens.  I figure it's their hill to die on as far as checking what folks actually are doing.

For a large-ish department, this usually isn't very hard for a chair who is willing to take the path of least resistance and not worry too much about what is fair, whatever that means.

Instructors who have never taught the class before are usually more than willing to take a textbook and a course outline and just implement it - it means that they don't have to think about these overall, strategic, questions and can focus on the tactical details of how to teach or assess a particular topic, do the grading, and so on.  As they get more experienced, they can take it up with the course coordinator about how to do things, and as long as everyone agrees, or the deviations aren't too big, it's fine.

So, if you simply take instructors who deviate too much from the standard and assign them to another course, replacing them with folks who haven't taught the course before, you solve the problem.

I took over a class from a previous instructor that was, frankly, a hot mess. Among other issues, the previous instructor was teaching a software that hadn't been supported by the company for 10 years and did not match current practice. And, the textbook he had been using made sense for the course title, but had nothing to do with his actual syllabus.

However, when the new Chair came in and observed me, she didn't like the way I had updated the class. So... she pulled it from me in the 2nd week of the new semester when I told her I was going to keep teaching it "my way."

Poor guy who got stuck with it had to search around for a legit source to download the aforementioned software as well as figure out why the Chair-approved syllabus didn't seem to have anything to do with the textbook for the class.

Big mess for the students as well.

Man that is some terrible management. A chair shouldn't really be dictating the way a course is taught like that in the first place, unless they are enforcing the decisions of the entire department. Otherwise, it's an abuse of their power to assign courses. Setting that aside, however, if the chair thinks it's important that a course be taught in a certain way, or that it needs to use a certain syllabus, they need to make that clear at the time they hire someone or assign them the course. And then they should require pre-approval of the syllabus. What kind of loon shows up on the second week of courses, demands the syllabus and structure of an ongoing course be changed, and when they get told that doesn't work, removes the instructor, replaces them with someone else and switches the entire syllabus around?

Neither the previous instructor nor the chair had, in my opinion, any subject matter expertise for what was being taught.

Dont. Get. Me. Started.

[marshwiggle]

For my department, we have been talking about something similar for survey courses that multiple sections are offered each semester, often largely taught by part-time professors. But this does not mean making everybody teach the same syllabus, but rather (a) making sure that the same content is covered so that somebody who passes Basket 101 will be ready to take Basket 102, etc; and (b) setting ranges for evaluations (e.g., in your case, formative assessments should be no more than a third of the grade; essays should be no more than a third of the grade; etc.)

I think the first item of business ought to be determining what we mean by "standardize". 

I anticipate this will be the hardest step. 

Same learning goals, list of topics that are essential, suggested textbook, and ranges for evaluation all seem quite reasonable to me.  I do think that if the class has a discussion, that the discussion needs to be part of the grade (or else why would students bother). 

For the sake of sanity in the labs, it would be very preferable that the order of topics is the same in all lectures since we don't have the capacity to teach different lab modules in the same week.

The department chair is insisting that this happens.  I figure it's their hill to die on as far as checking what folks actually are doing.

All of these factors suggest why something like "learning outcomes" (whether you call them that or not) make a lot of sense. Many (most? all?) institutions have some sort of statute of limitations on finishing a degree precisely because the changes over time in content of different courses makes what the degree represents unclear.

Can the creation of "learning outcomes" be done badly? Absloutely.
Does that mean it's not worth trying? I don't think so.

[MarathonRunner]

Most of the first year STEM courses at my large, Canada institution are standardized. There are dozens of sections on intro chem, intro physics (both with and without calculus), intro cell bio, into calculus, etc. There is a standard syllabus and standard exams for all these courses, regardless of instructor. These are courses taught by a combination of TT, tenured, and sessional folk. It ensures all students get the same foundation required for their remaining courses, and ensures assessment is consistent, or in student parlance "fair." These large, multi-section first year courses are managed by a course coordinator, who maintains the syllabus, creates the exams with input from faculty, and ensures overall consistency between the sections. Instructors can teach how they wish, but the textbook, the topics to be covered, the order they are covered in, and the assessments, are all common between sections. This is particularly important for some calculus and physics topics, because they need to be covered in time for engineering students to use them in their first year courses, later in the semester. I've yet to hear a faculty member complain about these standardized courses, many actually enjoy teaching them. They get to make decisions for their non-intro courses.

[dlehman]

Most of the first year STEM courses at my large, Canada institution are standardized. There are dozens of sections on intro chem, intro physics (both with and without calculus), intro cell bio, into calculus, etc. There is a standard syllabus and standard exams for all these courses, regardless of instructor. These are courses taught by a combination of TT, tenured, and sessional folk. It ensures all students get the same foundation required for their remaining courses, and ensures assessment is consistent, or in student parlance "fair." These large, multi-section first year courses are managed by a course coordinator, who maintains the syllabus, creates the exams with input from faculty, and ensures overall consistency between the sections. Instructors can teach how they wish, but the textbook, the topics to be covered, the order they are covered in, and the assessments, are all common between sections. This is particularly important for some calculus and physics topics, because they need to be covered in time for engineering students to use them in their first year courses, later in the semester. I've yet to hear a faculty member complain about these standardized courses, many actually enjoy teaching them. They get to make decisions for their non-intro courses.

While I understand the importance of standardized learning objectives for courses - particularly ones that are prerequisite material for further courses - I want to push back against standardizing the syllabi.  More than anything, this permits anyone to teach the course - you cite TT, Tenured, and seasonal folk.  Would you say they are all equally qualified?  And, is it desirable for the learners to have the exams and assignments standardized?  Or is it mainly "required" for assessment and accreditation?  Also, the idea that faculty get to make decisions for their non-intro courses sounds like a degradation of the teaching of intro courses - something that is ruining education in my opinion.  When I was a student I appreciated having instructors - even in intro courses - who were creative and different.  Increasingly, for material that is so standardized that creativity seems like a bad idea, it isn't clear to me that these need to be courses at all.  There are plenty of online options to acquire standardized knowledge.

[FishProf]

If the only way to be "creative and different" is by varying the syllabus, you are doing it wrong.

Also, don't be quick to assume top-down standardization; in my department, the faculty teaching the classes chose to do this long before the admin-phase kicked in.

[dlehman]

If the only way to be "creative and different" is by varying the syllabus, you are doing it wrong.

Also, don't be quick to assume top-down standardization; in my department, the faculty teaching the classes chose to do this long before the admin-phase kicked in.

Fair enough on both counts.  I don't disagree.  I still think there are issues with standardizing the syllabus, depending on how you define "syllabus."  Also, top down standards are a lot less palatable to me than the faculty-driven standards you mention - it's just that those have been rare in my experience.

[marshwiggle]

While I understand the importance of standardized learning objectives for courses - particularly ones that are prerequisite material for further courses - I want to push back against standardizing the syllabi.  More than anything, this permits anyone to teach the course - you cite TT, Tenured, and seasonal folk.  Would you say they are all equally qualified? 

If they're not all equally qualified, then it's even better that things are standardized. We've all heard stories of (especially new) faculty who don't get through all of the required material for a course, which in a prerequisite course will put those students at a disadvantage in the subsequent course(s).

And, is it desirable for the learners to have the exams and assignments standardized?  Or is it mainly "required" for assessment and accreditation? 

Absolutely, for the same reason. A struggling instructor can't just cover up by giving everyone higher grades.

Also, the idea that faculty get to make decisions for their non-intro courses sounds like a degradation of the teaching of intro courses - something that is ruining education in my opinion. 

In STEM, especially in things like introductory physics, there is lots of research on effective teaching, since there are so many students that take it. For higher level courses, where there aren't nearly as many students, there isn't the same research to guide teaching, so it makes sense to let faculty use their own judgement.

When I was a student I appreciated having instructors - even in intro courses - who were creative and different.  Increasingly, for material that is so standardized that creativity seems like a bad idea, it isn't clear to me that these need to be courses at all.  There are plenty of online options to acquire standardized knowledge.

So should things like med school and law school be replaced by entirely online options, since their material is "standardized"? That's a very bizarre criterion for what justifies a course.

If the only way to be "creative and different" is by varying the syllabus, you are doing it wrong.

Exactly.

[Juvenal]

The course and the course coordinator for my section had a "general course outline."  I suspect it still  has all the boilerplate (and more, if I read the admin bulletins a-right).  What I had was a "Course Supplement" with the personal info and particulars about exams and the weights for the parts.  Don't know if I could get away with that nowadays, but thisadays are now beyond thoseadays.

[Diogenes]

Our accreditors dinged us for having syllabuses all over the place. We now require SLOs, etc. on all of them. So it didn't come from inside the house.

[the_geneticist]

While I understand the importance of standardized learning objectives for courses - particularly ones that are prerequisite material for further courses - I want to push back against standardizing the syllabi.  More than anything, this permits anyone to teach the course - you cite TT, Tenured, and seasonal folk.  Would you say they are all equally qualified? 

If they're not all equally qualified, then it's even better that things are standardized. We've all heard stories of (especially new) faculty who don't get through all of the required material for a course, which in a prerequisite course will put those students at a disadvantage in the subsequent course(s).

And, is it desirable for the learners to have the exams and assignments standardized?  Or is it mainly "required" for assessment and accreditation? 

Absolutely, for the same reason. A struggling instructor can't just cover up by giving everyone higher grades.

Also, the idea that faculty get to make decisions for their non-intro courses sounds like a degradation of the teaching of intro courses - something that is ruining education in my opinion. 

In STEM, especially in things like introductory physics, there is lots of research on effective teaching, since there are so many students that take it. For higher level courses, where there aren't nearly as many students, there isn't the same research to guide teaching, so it makes sense to let faculty use their own judgement.

When I was a student I appreciated having instructors - even in intro courses - who were creative and different.  Increasingly, for material that is so standardized that creativity seems like a bad idea, it isn't clear to me that these need to be courses at all.  There are plenty of online options to acquire standardized knowledge.

So should things like med school and law school be replaced by entirely online options, since their material is "standardized"? That's a very bizarre criterion for what justifies a course.

If the only way to be "creative and different" is by varying the syllabus, you are doing it wrong.

Exactly.

Excellent points! 

I wish we had a course coordinator to standardize the exams (not that I'm volunteering to step into that hot mess).  Despite years of evidence about effective assessments, countless free resources, etc., most folks here write really bad* exams. 

*bad = misaligned with learning goals, use the "A only" "A & C" "B & C" question type that is shown to be less effective, overly-wordy questions, etc.