This study analyzes the content and discursive strategies within 39 introductory-level sociology course syllabi published in TRAILS, the Teaching Resources and Innovations Library of the American Sociological Association, from two different time periods (2004 and 2010) to explore the syllabus as a tool for socialization. We find that syllabi, commended for their attention to pedagogical practice, do more than communicate course objectives and the means for achieving them. Syllabi (re)socialize students for success in the college setting by establishing student-teacher roles and norms and setting the tone for classroom interactions. The integration of sociological concepts and perspectives into syllabi also immerses students into the discipline and practice of sociology.
AlbersCheryl. 2003. “Using the Syllabus to Document the Scholarship of Teaching.” Teaching Sociology31(1):60–72.
2.
BaeckerDiann L.1998. “Uncovering the Rhetoric of the Syllabus.” College Teaching46(2):58–62.
3.
BainKen. 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BeckerAngela H.CalhoonSharon. K.1999. “What Introductory Psychology Students Attend to on a Course Syllabus.” Teaching of Psychology26(1):6–11.
5.
BoyerErnest. 1997. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
BrookfieldStephen. 1995. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
CalhoonSharonBeckerAngela. 2008. “How Students Use the Course Syllabus.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning2(1):1–12.
8.
CollinsT.1997. “For Openers . . . An Inclusive Course Syllabus.” Pp. 79–102 in New Paradigms for College Teaching, edited by CampbellW.SmithK.Edina, MN: Interaction Books.
9.
CuseoJoe. 1997. “Guidelines for Group Work.” Cooperative Learning and College Teaching7(3):11–16.
10.
DanielsonMarry Ann. 1995. “The Role of the Course Syllabi in Classroom Socialization.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States Communication Association, April 19–23, Indianapolis, IN.
11.
DavidsonCliff I.AmbroseSusan A.1994. The New Professor’s Handbook: A Guide to Teaching and Research in Engineering and Science. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
12.
DavisBarbara Gross. 2009. Tools for Teaching. 2nd ed.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
De ZengotitaThomas. 2005. Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World and the Way You Live In It. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
14.
EmerickRobert E.1994. “A Conversation on Classroom Etiquette in Introductory Sociology Courses.” Teaching Sociology22(4):341–44.
15.
FelderRichard M.BrentRebecca. 1996. “Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction.” College Teaching44(2):43–47.
16.
FinkL. Dee. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
GaravaliaLinda S.HummelJohn H.WileyLarry P.HuittWilliam G.1999. “Constructing the Course Syllabus: Faculty and Student Perceptions of Important Syllabus Components.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching10(1):5–21.
18.
GrauerholzLizGibsonGreg. 2006. “Articulation of Goals and Means in Sociology Courses: What We Can Learn from Syllabi.” Teaching Sociology34(1):5–22.
19.
HabanekDarlene V.2005. “An Examination of the Integrity of the Syllabus.” College Teaching53(2):62–64.
20.
HuddSuzanne S.2003. “The Syllabus under Construction: Involving Students in the Creation of Class Assignments.” Teaching Sociology31(2):195–202.
21.
IshiyamaJohn T.HartlaubStephen. 2002. “Does the Wording of Syllabi Affect Course Assessment in Introductory Political Science Classes?” Political Science and Politics35(3):567–70.
22.
IsserlesRobinDalmageHeather. 2000. “Cultural Capital as Rules and Resistance: Bringing It Home in the Introductory Classroom.” Teaching Sociology28(2):160–65.
23.
JohnsonDavid H.JohnsonFrank P.2009. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. 10th ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
MatejkaKenKurkeLance. 1994. “Designing a Great Syllabus.” College Teaching4(3):115–17.
25.
O’BrienJudithMillisBarbara J.CohenMargaret W.DiamondRobert M.2008. The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered Approach. 2nd ed.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
O’MearaKerryAnnRiceR. Eugene. 2005. Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ParkesJayHarrisMary B.2002. “The Purposes of a Syllabus.” College Teaching50(2):55–61.
29.
PattonMichael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
PerrineRose M.LisleJamesTuckerDebbie. 1995. “Effects of a Syllabus Offer of Help, Student Age and Class Size on College Students’ Willingness to Seek Support from Faculty.” The Journal of Experimental Education64(1):41–52.
31.
RaymarkPatrick H.Connor-GreenePatricia. 2002. “The Syllabus Quiz.” Teaching of Psychology29(4):286–88.
32.
SchwalbeMichael. 2008. The Sociologically Examined Life: Pieces of the Conversation. 4th ed.Boston: McGraw-Hill.
33.
SlatteryJeanne M.CarlsonJanet F.2005. “Preparing an Effective Syllabus: Current Best Practices.” College Teaching53(4):159–64.
34.
SmithMary F.RazzoukNabil Y.1993. “Improving Classroom Communication: The Case of the Syllabus.” Journal of Education for Business68(4):215–21.
35.
ThompsonBlair. 2007. “The Syllabus as a Communication Document: Constructing and Presenting the Syllabus.” Communication Education56(1):54–71.
36.
TinsleyHoward E. A.WeissDavid J.2000. “Interrater Reliability and Agreement.” Pp. 95–124 in Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, edited by TinsleyH.BrownS.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
