“I’m Not Mean”: How the Course Syllabus Communicates Power

References

• Agger, Ben, and Beth Anne Shelton. 2017. “Time, Motion, Discipline: The Authoritarian Syllabus on American College Campuses.” Critical Sociology 43 (3): 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920515595844
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albers, Cheryl. 2003. “Using the Syllabus to Document the Scholarship of Teaching.” Teaching Sociology 31 (1): 60–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baecker, Diann L. 1998. “Uncovering the Rhetoric of the Syllabus: The Case of the Missing I.” College Teaching 46 (2): 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559809596237
   Google Scholar
• Bain, K. 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• Bawarshi, Anis S. 2000. “The Genre Function.” College English 62 (3): 335–360. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce20001170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bawarshi, Anis S. 2003. Genre and the Invention of the Writer. Denver: UP of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, H. Russell. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Kenneth G.,Steven D. Charlier, Sara L. Rynes, and Andrew Hosmanek. 2013. “What Do We Teach in Organizational Behavior? an Analysis of MBA Syllabi.” Journal of Management Education 37 (4): 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913486469.
   Google Scholar
• Cardozo, Karen M. 2006. “At the Museum of Natural Theory: The Experiential Syllabus (or, What Happens When Students Act like Professors).” Pedagogy 6 (3): 405–433. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2006-003
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, Robert M. 1998. Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A Practical Guide, Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• DiClementi, Jeannie D., and Mitchell M. Handelsman. 2005. “Empowering Students: Class-Generated Course Rules.” Teaching of Psychology 32 (1): 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3201_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberly, M. B., S. E. Newton, and R. A. Wiggins. 2001. “The Syllabus as a Tool for Student-Centered Learning.” Journal of General Education 50 (1): 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2001.0003
   Google Scholar
• Fuentes, Milton A., David G. Zelaya, and Joshua W. Madsen. 2021. “Rethinking the Course Syllabus: Consideration for Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.” Teaching of Psychology 48 (1): 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller, Mary J., and Jean Ann Lutz. 2002. “Constructing Authority: Student Responses and Classroom Discourse.” In Discourse Studies in Composition, edited by Ellen Barton and Gail Stygail, 353–375. New York: Hampton.
   Google Scholar
• Golish, Tamara D., and Loreen N. Olson. 2000. “Students’ Use of Power in the Classroom: An Investigation of Student Power, Teacher Power, and Teacher Immediacy.” Communication Quarterly 48 (3): 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385598
   Google Scholar
• Habanek, Darlene. 2005. “An Examination of the Integrity of the Syllabus.” College Teaching 53 (2): 62–64. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.2.62-64
   Google Scholar
• Harnish, Richard J., and K. Robert Bridges. 2011. “Effect of Syllabus Tone: Students’ Perceptions of Instructor and Course.” Social Psychology of Education 14 (3): 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9152-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudd, Suzanne S. 2003. “Syllabus under Construction: Involving Students in the Creation of Class Assignments.” Teaching Sociology 31 (2): 195–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishiyama, John T., and Stephen Hartlaub. 2002. “Does the Wording of Syllabi Affect Student Course Assessment in Introductory Political Science Classes?” PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (3): 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502000860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, Jade S., A. D. Bugeja, and L. K. Barber. 2014. “More Content or More Policy? A Closer Look at Syllabus Detail, Instructor Gender, and Perceptions of Instructor Effectiveness.” College Teaching 62 (4): 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.935700
   Google Scholar
• Jones, Natasha N. 2018. “Human Centered Syllabus Design: Positioning Our Students as Expert End-Users.” Computers and Composition 49: 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, David M., and Monika K. Renard. 2015. “Negotiating Your Syllabus: Building a Collaborative Contract.” Journal of Management Education 39 (3): 400–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914564788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lutz, Jean, and Mary Fuller. 2007. “Exploring Authority: A Case Study of a Composition and a Professional Writing Classroom.” Technical Communication Quarterly 16 (2): 201–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250709336560
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, James C., and Virginia P. Richmond. 1983. “Power in the Classroom I: Teacher and Student Perceptions.” Communication Education 32 (2): 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528309378527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWilliams, Susan. 2015. “The Democratic Syllabus.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (01): 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001723
   Google Scholar
• Micari, Marina, and Pilar Pazos. 2012. “Connecting to the Professor: Impact of the Student-Faculty Relationship in a Highly Challenging Course.” College Teaching 60 (2): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.627576
   Google Scholar
• Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (2): 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkes, Jay, and Mary B. Harris. 2002. “The Purposes of a Syllabus.” College Teaching 50 (2): 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875
   Google Scholar
• Popham, Susan L. 2005. “Forms as Boundary Genres in Medicine, Science, and Business.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 19 (3): 279–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651905275624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymark, Patrick H., and Patricia A. Connor-Greene. 2002. “The Syllabus Quiz.” Teaching of Psychology 29 (4): 286–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_05
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richmond, Aaron S., Robin K. Morgan, Jeanne M. Slattery, Nathanael G. Mitchell, and Anna Grace Cooper. 2019. “Project Syllabus: An Exploratory Study of Learner-Centered Syllabi.” Teaching of Psychology 46 (1): 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richmond, Virginia P. 1990. “Communication in the Classroom: Power and Motivation.” Communication Education 39 (3): 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, David R. 2009. “Uses of Activity Theory in Written Communication Research.” In Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, edited by Yrjö Engström, 40–52. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• Singham, Mano. 2007. “Death to the Syllabus!” Liberal Education Fall: 52–56.
   Google Scholar
• Slattery, J. M., and J. F. Carlson. 2005. “Preparing an Effective Syllabus: Current Best Practices.” College Teaching 53 (4): 159–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.4.159-164
   Google Scholar
• Stein, Kevin A., and Matthew H. Barton. 2019. “The ‘Easter Egg’ Syllabus: Using Hidden Content to Engage Online and Blended Classroom Learners.” Communication Teacher 33 (4): 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2019.1575440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenberg, Shari, and Amy Lee. 2002. “Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English.” College English 64 (3): 326–347. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce20021252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulik, Gayle, and Jennifer Keys. 2014. “Many Students Really Do Not yet Know How to Behave!’: The Syllabus as a Tool for Socialization.” Teaching Sociology 42 (2): 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13513243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theilheimer, Rachel, and Betsy Cahill. 2014. “This is Your Class’: Theorizing What Syllabi Say about Relationships between Instructors and Students in Early Childhood Teacher Education Classrooms.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5 (1): 4–18. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2004.5.1.8
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Blair. 2007. “The Syllabus as a Communication Document: Constructing and Presenting the Syllabus.” Communication Education 56 (1): 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601011575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, Julie. 2022. “Communicating Instructor Power Online: A Case Study Examining Communities of Inquiry.” Journal of Educators Online 19 (3).
   Google Scholar
• Womack, Anne-Marie. 2017. “Teaching is Accommodation: Universally Designing Composition Classrooms and Syllabi.” College Composition & Communication 68 (3): 494–525. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201728964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar