Syllabus Expectations and Examples

This page addresses syllabus expectations with regard to course-level assessment only. The University, the College of Arts and Sciences, the Boler School of Business, and each department may have additional requirements.

Each syllabus from each class at ��AV must include a section that addresses learning goals.

Expectations

The student learning goals section of the syllabus should provide a rationale for the course in the context of a student’s overall JCU education.

There should be clear statements of the learning goals for the course. Learning goals are general statements that explain what students should know, be able to do, or value by the end of the course. These goals may be further explained by objectives that specify what students will demonstrate in the context of achieving these goals. The learning goals should be specific, measurable, and focused on student learning.

There should also be an explanation of how the course connectswith major or minor requirements, integrative core requirements, and the University Learning Goals. The syllabus should explain how the course learning goals reflect the learning goals for the core category, for the major, for the minor, etc. These connections can be described in words, illustrated through a graphic organizer, or delineated in a chart or table.

There should also be an explanation for how the students’ learning in these articulated areas will be measured or assessed. Which assignments/tasks/tests/projects will provide the instructor (and the students) feedback on student learning? This could be done in the learning goals section of the syllabus or in a later section of the syllabus that describes the assignments.

Possible Models

Some of the models below provide more depth than the minimum requirements; these are flagged “in depth.” Other annotations indicate whether connections are illustrated in words (“text”), a table, or in a graphic.

(Challen) graphic
(McBratney) text
(Pace) text
(Karolle-Berg) text
(Hessinger) table
(McAndrew) text (but nice use of graphic design overall)
(Kilbride) text
(Ziemke) in depth, text
(Mooney) in depth, text
(Martin) text
(Barnes) text

A table like this might also work:

��

Models last updated August 15, 2016

����AV

Assessment