The Purposes of a Syllabus

College Teaching

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 55-61

  Parkes, Jay ^a   Harris, Mary B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

course policies; learning aid; syllabus; teacher expectations

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006790801     PISSN: 87567555     EISSN: 19308299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/87567550209595875     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Atlas, J., 1999. The loose canon: Why higher learning has embraced pornography. New Yorker, 29 March: 60–5.
2. Bass, R., 1993. The syllabus builder: A hypertext resource for teachers of literature. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 5 (1): 3–26.
3. Diamond, R. M., 1998. Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide, 2d ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., and Maeroff, G. I., 1997. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Grunert, J., 1997. The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach, Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
6. Hill v University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz. 978 F. 2d 1258 (E. D. Kentucky 1992)
7. Hill, V., 1996. Verb-form clustering and syllabus design. System, 24 (4): 529–36.
8. Hockensmith, S. F., 1988. The syllabus as a teaching tool. The Educational Forum, 52 (4): 339–51.
9. Hutchings, P., 1996. The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues, and prospects. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4): 221–34.
10. Kahn, S., 1993. Better teaching through better evaluation: A guide for faculty and institutions. To Improve the Academy, 12: 111–26.
11. Keen v. Penson. 970 F.2d 252, (E.D. Wisconsin, 1992)
12. Leeds, J., The course syllabus as seen by the undergraduate student. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.
13. Malik, D. J., 1996. Peer review of teaching: External review of course content. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4): 277–85.
14. Matejka, K., and Kurke, L., 1994. Designing a great syllabus. College Teaching, 4 (3): 115–17.
15. McKeachie, W. J., 1986. Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
16. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 1992. Standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional education units, Washington, DC: Author.
17. Pastorino, E. E., 1999. Students with academic difficulty: Prevention and assistance. APS Observer,: 10–11. 26
18. Seldin, P., 2000. Portfolios: A positive appraisal. Academe, January/February: 37–47.
19. Sheen, R., 1994. A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1): 127–50.
20. Smith, M. F., and Razzouk, N. Y., 1993. Improving classroom communication: The case of the syllabus. Journal of Education for Business, 68 (4): 215–21.
21. Whitley, B. E., Perkins, D. V., Balogh, D. W., Keith-Speigel, P., and Wittig, A. F., 2000. Fairness in the classroom. APS Observer, 13 (6): 24–7.
22. Wittig, A. F., Perkins, D. V., Balogh, D. W., Whitley, B. E., and Keith-Speigel, P., 1999. Treating students differentially: Ethics in shades of gray. APS Observer, 12 (6): 12–3. 36
23. Woolcock, M. J. V., Constructing a syllabus (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2000 from