An Examination Of The Integrity Of The Syllabus

College Teaching

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 62-64

  Habanek, Darlene V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WHITEWATER   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; learning objectives; syllabus

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845770282     PISSN: 87567555     EISSN: 19308299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.53.2.62-64     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Davis, B. G. 1993. Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Grunert, J. 1997. The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
3. Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Becker, A. H. 1999. What introductory psychology students attend to on a course syllabus. Teaching of Psychology 26 (1): 6-11.
5. Lisle, J., R. M. Perrine, and D. L. Tucker. 1995. Effects of a syllabus offer of help, student age and class size on college students' willingness to seek support from faculty. Journal of Experimental Education 64 (1): 41-52.
6. Parks, J., and M. B. Harris. 2002. The purpose of a syllabus. College Teaching 50 (2): 55-61.
7. Collins, T. 1997. For openers… an inclusive course syllabus. In New paradigms for college teaching, ed. W. E. Campbell and K. A. Smith, 79-102. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.
8. Davidson, C. I., and S. A. Ambrose. 1994. The new professor's handbook. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.