Reassessing the syllabus: six essays on what the syllabus was, is, and could be

Abstract

This dissertation uses methods from writing studies and technical and professional communication to challenge some of our most basic assumptions about course syllabi. Specifically, this dissertation seeks to challenge the typical metaphors used to describe syllabi; the conventional ways in which instructors speak about syllabi; and the normative organization of information within syllabi. To challenge these notions, such methods are used as critical metaphor analysis, critical discourse analysis, card sorting, and rhetorical analysis. The final chapters also offer generative artificial intelligence interventions for improving audience analysis when composing syllabi. ☐ Ultimately, this dissertation highlights how current ways of talking about syllabi are incomplete; legalistic metaphors dominate the conversation where framings that establish empathy get downplayed. Among those framings for establishing empathy is the syllabus as a user-centered experience. The middle chapters of this dissertation explore ways in which students’ voices can be elicited by instructors and then foregrounded in syllabi. While these chapters use card sorting and critical discourse analysis, they intend to inspire the use of further user-centered methods in analyzing syllabi. ☐ The final chapters respond to the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, a technology that launched to a widespread audience and gained popular adoption during the composition of this dissertation. While these chapters do find common pitfalls in generative artificial intelligence’s capabilities, they also discover moments within the syllabus composition process where an instructor may benefit from artificial intelligence generated insights. ☐ The implications of this research aim to be far-reaching. After all, the syllabus is familiar to almost everyone working in higher education, and many people on campuses are stakeholders in the document’s appearance—from students and instructors to department chairs and provosts. As recommended in this dissertation, adopting more empathetic language for describing the syllabus and more user-centered methods for composing the syllabus may result in broader cultural shifts at universities toward more welcoming atmospheres and more human bureaucracies.