Case Study #1: 5 Course Syllabi

Trebby Ellington
Loyola University Chicago

The analysis and reflection in this case study is based upon five syllabi in the course
juvenile delinquency and justice in the field of criminal justice. The syllabi are chosen from the
following universities and colleges: University of Arkansas
(http://academics.uafs.edu/sites/academics.uafs.edu/files/Departments/Records/syllabi/CJ/CJ_25
13_Juvenile_Delinquency_and_Juvenile_Justice.pdf), Northeastern University
(http://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/sccj/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/01/CRIM-3200Zimmerman-Fall-2014.pdf), Rutgers
(http://criminaljustice.rutgers.edu/images/syllabi/16_Spring/SP16JuvJustRUSSELL.pdf),
University of Wyoming
(http://www.uwyo.edu/cj/_files/syllabi%20spring%202016/stone%20syllabus%20crmj%203250
%20juvenile%20delinquency%20spring%2020161.pdf), and Midland College
(http://www.midland.edu/docs/public_information/paci/hb2504/syllabi/criminal_justice/CRIJ131
3.pdf). Some connections and disconnections between themes and trends between the syllabi are
discussed; however, it is important to acknowledge that not every possible connection or
disconnection is examined.
First, each syllabus for each course was structured quite similarly with the exception of
certain sections or implications. Most similarly, an explanation of the course description and a
list of the course goals, objectives, and learning outcomes were presented across each syllabus
which preceded the rest of the course information. This represents the instructors efforts to
demonstrate their commitments to engage students in significant learning beyond simple
information and fact regurgitation having given critical thought to how students may use course
material in a number of contexts. For example, the University of Arkansas syllabus illustrated
technological skills, global and cultural perspectives, communication skills, analytical skills, and

ethics as learning outcomes. These learning outcomes, similar to those of the other four syllabi,
support the taxonomy of significant learning because they prompted synergistic learning that will
have allowed some kind of change in the student (Fink, 2003). This may permit students to
connect what they have learned in the class to multiple aspects of life.
Secondly, with the exception of the University of Arkansas, all of the syllabi included the
instructors contact information as well as sections that describe the university or college policy
and classroom expectations. Two points arose for me in regards to the latter: what millennials
value and the opportunity to further support students. The inclusion of university or college
policy and classroom expectations in the syllabi supports the idea that millennials value and
respond well to structure, discipline, rules and regulations (Nilson, 2010). I believe if this were
not the case, these would not be included in the syllabi. For example, Rutgers explained in depth
the policies behind plagiarism, attendance and academic honesty and how each could affect a
students success within the course. Without expectations outlined, students may consider an
instructor disorganized, ill prepared and unprofessional which may then negatively impact
students learning experiences in that course because what they find of value is not being
exemplified (Nilson, 2010). Additionally, the sharing of each instructors contact information
demonstrates the instructors attempts to be flexible and provide continued challenge and support
outside of the classroom experience.
Next, all of the syllabi displayed a breakdown of what the final grade will consist of with
a grading scale to accompany it, except that of the University of Arkansas. The assessment of
student success in the course demonstrated by the syllabi was based on the performance of what
a student scores on assignments and exams. Though this was true of each syllabus, that of
Northeastern University promoted a uniqueness to assessing student success that supports the

idea that assessment should happen continuously and provide information about the level of
understanding for students (Bransford, 1999). For example, Northeastern University had a class
research project where students were to work alone and within a group. Students were to submit
a portion of the research paper at different times to allow for feedback to be given continuously
so that students could then apply that feedback to the forthcoming parts of the project. Working
within a group, students were required to give feedback on each others papers based off of their
own experiences with their research on that particular topic. It is said that peers can serve as
excellent sources of feedback (Bransford, 1999) and people learn when they are motivated to do
so by inspiration of others (Nilson, 2010). I believe multiple forms of and consistency of
feedback is instrumental to a students success in the course and more importantly, to a students
deep understanding and learning of the material. With only performance based feedback in the
form of points received out of total points possible on only quizzes and exams, students may not
remember the information after taking the exams let alone after finishing the course.
Then, focusing on what learning opportunities were provided to students based on the
syllabi, a common theme displayed was applying what was learned in class to the real world and
using real world experiences in class. With the exception of the University of Wyoming, all of
the syllabi demonstrated this. For example, Midland College incorporated a focus on current
issues and the needs of the system and society into the course description. In support of the
literature, students learn what they consider as significant to their lives and learn best when real
world problems are integrated into the course content (Bransford, 1999 & Nilson, 2010). This
allows students to find purpose behind what they are studying and how they or others in their
communities may be impacted by what is examined in the course.

Though there were quite a few similarities between the syllabi, there were also some
areas of disconnect between them. The first point of disconnect noticed were the methods of
teaching used. Only the University of Arkansas and Northeastern University provided its
students with multiple methods of learning. For example, the University of Arkansas required
writing assignments, readings, videos, guest speakers and discussions and Northeastern
University required group projects, research, presentations, quizzes, exams, and class teaching.
These various methods used may allow students to use different parts of their brain which
supports the literature in that people learn best when they receive new information numerous
times in a variety of ways (Nilson, 2010). Not only does this support individual learners, but this
also supports all individuals in the whole course in that each students primary method of
learning is stimulated at some point in the course requirements. The other syllabi; however,
demonstrated the use of only one or very few methods which were teacher centered and lecture
based where students read, listened, wrote, and took exams. As Nilson (2010) stated:
People dont learn well when their major learning context is teacher centeredthat is,
when they passively listen to each other talk. Rather, they learn when they are actively
engaged in an activity, a life experience.
It is also important to point out that two of the syllabi, University of Wyoming and Midland
College, represented online courses. So, an initial thought that arose for me that may challenge
the literature is how do professors effectively integrate multiple methods of teaching in online
courses to continually interest and engage their students in significant learning?
Another theme that showed a disconnect between the syllabi was that only two, the
University of Wyoming and Midland College, promoted the idea that the student is responsible
for their own learning. For example, the University of Wyoming lists as an expectation that

students take full responsibility for their success in the course and to initiate a conversation with
the instructor if they are struggling sooner rather than later. I was surprised to find that not all
syllabi promoted and encouraged active learning because this is a form of assessment, which is
metacognition, that supports understanding and transferring to different situations rather than
only remembering and regurgitating information (Bransford, 1999). Only two of the syllabi
seemed to encourage their students to predict their performances and observe their current levels
of mastery and understanding (Bransford, 1999).
As a final point, I found it important to note that none of the five syllabi alluded to the
instructors meeting their students where their current knowledge and perceptions were. My
observation of the syllabi was that they were very content driven and focused on jumping right
into the course material. I found this very problematic because if a students initial understanding
is not engaged, he/she may not comprehend new concepts or information and regress back to
their previous ways of thinking (Bransford, 1999). I believe this provides both a problem and a
critique to the syllabi as well as to the literature because it seems quite contradictory to try to
take some steps in the direction of helping to achieve significant learning by way of using
various teaching methods, making assessment congruent with learning outcomes, etc. if students
are not even being asked about or tested on their pre-existing knowledge at the beginning of the
course. Essentially, how can we encourage, promote and challenge our students deep and
holistic understanding of course material by only abiding by certain criteria of the significant
learning suggestions?

References
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. National Academy Press.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences in college classrooms. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Midland College,
http://www.midland.edu/docs/public_information/paci/hb2504/syllabi/criminal_justice/C
RIJ1313.pdf
Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors.
John Wiley & Sons.
Northeastern University, http://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/sccj/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/01/CRIM-3200-Zimmerman-Fall-2014.pdf
Rutgers, http://criminaljustice.rutgers.edu/images/syllabi/16_Spring/SP16JuvJustRUSSELL.pdf
University of Arkansas,
http://academics.uafs.edu/sites/academics.uafs.edu/files/Departments/Records/syllabi/CJ/
CJ_2513_Juvenile_Delinquency_and_Juvenile_Justice.pdf
University of Wyoming,
http://www.uwyo.edu/cj/_files/syllabi%20spring%202016/stone%20syllabus%20crmj%2
03250%20juvenile%20delinquency%20spring%2020161.pdf