Learner-centered syllabi influence students’ perceptions of their instructors; however, studies have not investigated the gender identity of the instructor.
Objective
We sought to investigate whether the gender of the instructor and the syllabus design affected students' perceptions of the instructor, course, and memory of the syllabus.
Method
Participants were randomly assigned to read either learner- or instructor-centered syllabi for a course taught by a male, female, or gender-neutral instructor. They reported their perceptions of the instructor (i.e., Teacher Behavior Checklist), how they perceived the syllabus (i.e., Syllabus Tone Survey), and their memory of syllabus information.
Results
Students who received a learner-centered syllabus perceived the instructor as possessing higher master teacher behaviors, positive tone and remembered more of the course syllabus. Students perceived gender-neutral instructors as more caring, supportive, professional, and communicative compared to male and female instructors. Perceptions of male instructors were the least negative, and female instructors were the least positive.
Conclusion
The current study adds to the growing body of research demonstrating that a learner-centered syllabus can positively influence students' perceptions of the instructor. The initial evidence suggests that gender may also have an effect.
Teaching Implications
Instructors should consider designing their syllabus using learner-centered principles and be cautious and aware of a potential gender bias.
AddisonW. E.BestJ.WarringtonJ. D. (2006). Students’ perceptions of their course difficulty and their ratings of the instructor. College Student Journal, 40(2), 409–461https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9409-7.
2.
American College Health Association (2018). American college health association-National college health assessment II: Reference group executive summary fall 2018. American College Health Association.
BaconD. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316636732
5.
BasowS. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.656
6.
BoysenG. A.RichmondA. S.GurungR. A. R. (2015). Model teaching criteria for psychology: Initial documentation of teachers’ self-reported competency. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000023
7.
BuskistW.SikorskiJ.BuckleyT.SavilleB. K. (2002). Elements of master teaching. In DavisS. F.BuskistW. (Eds), The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer (pp. 27–39). Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CalhoonS.BeckerA. (2008). How students use the course syllabus. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020106
9.
CaseK. A.StewartB.TittsworthJ. (2009). Transgender across the curriculum: A psychology for inclusion. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739446
10.
ChickeringA. W.GamsonZ. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
11.
ClaysonD. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308324086
12.
CullenR.HarrisM. (2009). Assessing learner‐centredness through course syllabi. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956018
13.
DiamondR. M. (1997). Foreword. In Grunert, J. (Ed.), The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach. Bolton, MA: Anker.
14.
DiClementiJ. D.HandelsmanM. M. (2005). Empowering students: Class-generated course rules. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3201_4
15.
FuentesM. A.ZelayaD. G.MadsenJ. W. (2021). Rethinking the course syllabus: Considerations for promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion. Teaching of Psychology, 48(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959979
16.
GeierM. T. (2020). The teacher behavior checklist: The mediation role of teacher behaviors in the relationship between the students’ importance of teacher behaviors and students’ effort. Teaching of Psychology, 49(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320979896
17.
GrunertJ. (2008). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
18.
GurungR. A. R.GalardiN. R. (2021). Syllabus tone, more than mental health statements, influence intentions to seek help. Teaching of Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628321994632.
HarnishR. J.BridgesK. R. (2011). Effect of syllabus tone: Student perceptions of instructor and course. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9152-4
21.
HarringtonC. M.Gabert-QuillenC. A. (2015). Syllabus length and use of images: An empirical investigation of student perceptions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000040
22.
IshiyamaJ. T.HartlaubS. (2002). Does the wording of syllabi affect student course assessment in introductory political science classes?Political Science & Politics, 35(03), 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502000860
23.
JenkinsJ. S.BugejaA. D.BarberL. K. (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
24.
JohnsonC. (2006). Best practices in syllabus writing: Contents of a learner-centered syllabus. The Journal of Chiropractic Education, 20(2), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.7899/1042-5055-20.2.139
KeeleyJ.FurrR. M.BuskistW. (2010). Differentiating psychology students’ perceptions of teachers using the teacher behavior checklist. Teaching of Psychology, 37(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903426282
27.
KeeleyJ.SmithD.BuskistW. (2006). The teacher behaviors checklist: Factor analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3302_1
28.
KiersteadD.D'AgostinoP.DillH. (1988). Sex role stereotyping of college professors: Bias in students’ ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 342–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.342
29.
KrkovicK.GreiffS.KupiainenS.VainikainenM.-P.HautamäkiJ. (2014). Teacher evaluation of student ability: What roles do teacher gender, student gender, and their interaction play?Educational Research, 56(2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.898909
30.
LimJ.MeerJ. (2017). The impact of teacher-student gender matches: Random assignment evidence from South Korea. The Journal of Human Resources, 52(4), 979–997. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.52.4.1215-7585R1
31.
MacNellL.DriscollA.HuntA. N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
MillerJ.ChamberlinM. (2000). Women are teachers, men are professors: A study of student perceptions. Teaching Sociology, 28(4), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318580
34.
NusbaumA. T.SwindellS.PlemonsA. (2021). Kindness at first sight: The role of syllabi in impression formation. Teaching of Psychology, 48(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959953
35.
O’BrianG.MillisB.CohenM. (2008). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
37.
OvermanA. A.XuQ.LittleD. (2019). What do students actually pay attention to and remember from a syllabus? An eye tracking study of visually rich and text-based syllabi. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 6(4), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000157.
PerrineR. M.LisleJ.TuckerD. L. (1995). Effects of a syllabus offer of help, student age, and class size on college students’ willingness to seek support from faculty. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.9943794
RichmondA. S. (2016). Constructing a learner-centered syllabus: One professor's journey. IDEA paper #60. IDEA Center, Inc.
42.
RichmondA. S. (2021). Initial evidence for the Learner-Centered Syllabus Scale: A focus on reliability and concurrent and predictive validity. College Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1873726
43.
RichmondA. S.BoysenG. A.GurungR. A. R.TazeauY. N.MeyersS. A.SciuttoM. J. (2014). Aspirational model teaching criteria for psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549699
44.
RichmondA. S.SlatteryJ. M.MitchellN.MorganR. K.BecknellJ. (2016). Can a learner-centered syllabus change students’ perceptions of student-professor rapport and master teacher behaviors?Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(3), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000066
45.
RichmondA. S.MorganR. K.SlatteryJ.MitchellN. G.CooperA. G. (2019). Project Syllabus: An exploratory study of learner-centered syllabi. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 6–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816129
46.
SavilleB. K.ZinnT. E.BrownA. R.MarchukK. A. (2010). Syllabus detail and students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 37(3), 186–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.488523
47.
SitzmannT.ElyK.BrownK. G.BauerK. N. (2010). Self- assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.2.zqr169
SmithM. F.RazzoukN. Y. (1993). Improving classroom communication: The case of the course syllabus. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117616
SulikG.KeysJ. (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
52.
ThompsonB. (2007). The syllabus as a communication document: Constructing and presenting the syllabus. Communication Education, 56(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601011575
53.
TindallN. T. J.WatersR. D. (2017). Does gender and professional experience influence students’ perceptions of professors?Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 72(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695815613932
Waggoner DentonA.VelosoJ. (2018). Changes in syllabus tone affect warmth (but not competence) ratings of both male and female instructors. Social Psychology of Education, 21(1), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9409-7
56.
WeimerM. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Jossey-Bass.
57.
WeinkleL. J.StratfordJ. M.LeeL. M. J. (2020). Voice in digital education: The impact of instructor’s perceived age and gender on student learning and evaluation. Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1865
58.
WilsonJ. H.RyanR. G. (2013). Professor-student rapport scale: Six items predict student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 130–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312475033
59.
WilsonJ. H.WilsonS. B. (2007). The first day of class affects student motivation: An experimental study. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701700151
