It’s almost two weeks late, but finally complete: the syllabus for the summer course I teach. This is no small feat: I can crank out a book review, but a syllabus is a careful consideration. Is it too boring? Will it fit my students? Is there too much reading? Is there too little reading? Does it match curriculum standards? Is it challenging? A slew of questions attack the moment construction begins. A good syllabus understands exactly who it is for and what the expected outcomes should be. But I wonder- how many of my own professors’ syllabi fit this description? Upon reflection, I think my undergraduate instructors were much more concerned or attuned to how the syllabus was interpreted by students whereas my graduate instructors catered their courses to emphasize their own strengths. This makes a bit of sense: graduate instructors understand their audiences are seeking specification (and perhaps even more so, are captive) while the undergraduate is a general study. My own audience for the summer is a fairly more complicated. How do you teach Debate and Persuasive Rhetoric to the nation’s top 1% of preteens? (I know, a less rhetorical answer involves Bloom’s taxonomy.)
So far, I think I have a great start. Good thing, class begins in 14 days.
