Joliana Yee

Case Study #1
ELPS 430
Student Affairs Masters Course Syllabi
For the purpose of this syllabi comparative analysis assignment, I
chose to examine the syllabi for five Higher Education and Student
Affairs Masters-level courses from across the United States (Mac,
2015; Saunders, 2014) . Drawing from the assigned course readings, I
will use this paper to highlight the syllabi content that supports the key
concepts presented in the scholarly literature, observable trends in
how the syllabi were constructed and any practice that presented as
an anomaly.
Each syllabus was organized in a variety of ways but all five
contained the following section headers: Class information (i.e. time,
day, location), instructor information, course purpose/description,
university policy, required texts, course assignments/assessment, and
course overview by the weekly. While the content of each section
might vary to different degrees it allows students taking the course to
get a sense for what the instructor(s) has conceptualized for their time
together over the course of the semester. The intentionality that goes
into creating the syllabi is the instructors first opportunity to role
model an active and engaged approach to knowledge transfer, which is
an important element to promoting initial learning (Bransford, Brown &
Cocking, 2000).

All five course syllabi provided their students with a weekly

overview of course content that would be covered for the remainder of
the semester as well as the assignments that would be utilized to
assess their students understanding of course content. This trend is
consistent with the concept presented in the Nilson (2010) reading
which promotes giving students the big picture for the overall
organization of the course content and how that will manifest itself in
the final products of the course. Only one syllabus (Goodman, 2013)
actually employed a graphic representation to help students
understand the purpose of a given assignment as it relates to their
learning process.
A component of the syllabi that was unique to Miami University
course syllabi were the instructor information provided (Goodman,
2013; Goodman & Johnson, 2015). The instructor(s) provided personal
statements explicitly communicating their individual commitment to
the learning process and their priorities as educators as well as how
that would manifest itself in the course. Positioning the instructor(s),
who is already viewed as the content expert by students, as someone
who brings the same level of engagement and intentionality to the
course as they expect of their students provides a context that
cultivates a community-centered approach to learning. As discussed in
the Bransford, Brown & Cocking (2000), I believe this practice helps set
the tone for developing a community and/or leaner centered learning

environment and moves away from the disproportionately knowledge

and assessment centered learning environments that we have become
socialized the accept as the norm.
The manner in which course/community expectations are
communicated also have a similar impact. The word choice in Kayas
syllabus not only clearly indicated the instructors expectation of
students in the course but also alluded to the role she also plays in
ensuring that the written expectations are successfully upheld.
Furthermore, the printed expectations only served as an initial
launching point for in-class discussion and co-creation of expectations
that will serve to foster success and excellence for all students taking
the course. This works to begin breaking down the preconceptions a
majority of students bring from their undergraduate experience
whereby the professor/instructor is seen as the only source of valid
knowledge in the classroom (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). This
will likely peak student interest and open them up more to receiving
new concepts and information that theyre uncomfortable and
unfamiliar with.
The course outcomes and learning objectives were where I saw
the most variation in syllabus construction. Utilizing Finks (2003)
major categories in the taxonomy of significant learning (p.31) as a
framework to analyze the course syllabi, I noticed that a majority of
them did not explicitly state outcomes/objectives that would promote

learning how to learn. Acknowledging that the syllabi is a one

dimensional document that does not fully capture how the information
on a piece of paper is translated into a physical classroom, it was
interesting to note that outcomes/objectives that promote foundational
knowledge, application, integration and human dimension were more
easily and consistently communicated in just a few short sentences.
Does that communicate the priorities of educators in Higher Education
programs?
In conclusion, I was pleased to note that a majority of the course
assignments over a given semester reflected at least three to four out
of the six major categories of significant learning (Fink, 2003).
Additionally, it reflected the attribute of formative assessment
discussed in Bransford, Brown and Cocking (2000). I make this
observation drawing from my professional and personal experience as
someone who has gone through a Higher Education and Student Affairs
Masters program and navigate the job search and transition as a new
professional in the field.