The Need for Empirical, Student-Centered Research on the Course Syllabus

Many guides on how to prepare a syllabus for a college class purport to be evidence-based and cite scholarly publications to back up their recommendations. We argue that the literature on syllabi is far less robust than is commonly believed. We document five shortcomings that characterize much prior work on the topic: recommendations based on instructors' opinions, not empirical evidence; an institution-centric bias that de-centers the student voice; a tendency to view the syllabus document as a self-evident good suited for all tasks ("mission creep"); the use of artificial laboratory settings; and the collection of limited types of data. We conclude by calling for more rigorous empirical work on students' experiences with the syllabus document, especially qualitative research that centers students' perspectives.