Thoughts on Driscoll and Wood 7 and 8

Reflections on Driscoll and Wood Chapters 7-8 

My experience in college so far has been on the receiving end of syllabi.  Some instructions have been clear and easy to understand; some of been very detailed and hard to follow; while others have been so streamlined that I hoped the professor would fill in the details right away so that I would have an idea of what was expected of me. 

A syllabus should be well-organized, detailed enough so that the student understands what will be happening in the semester, yet not too detailed to cause the student to run the other way in horror. Driscoll mentions a student who felt “fear” and “dread” when looking at a syllabus (Driscoll & Wood, 2007, pp 136-137).  I had similar feelings and decided against taking a class last semester after reviewing the previous semester’s syllabus; I didn’t think I would be smart enough or energetic enough to fulfill the assignments in the time allotted. I like the idea of having the students respond to the syllabus anonymously in writing, as was suggested (Driscoll & Wood, p 137).  That would give the professor immediate feedback about the students’ concerns and questions.

The table Dr. Staples devised for her class syllabus shows the class readings, lectures, discussions, and assignments and the different outcomes associated with each (Driscoll & Wood, pp 141-143).  With this kind of detailed explanation of what will be done and why, no one need ask a fellow student [and I’ve heard this in class] “why are we reading this stupid book?”

When Driscoll and her colleagues mapped out the outcome areas and their representation in course syllabi in the Course Alignment Project (pp 163-167), they found gaps in the assignments.  They noticed that not all of the course work in some classes even matched the outcomes.  The mapping of matches of content and outcomes was a clever way to find areas needing improvement. As I was reading this chapter, I questioned whether all outcome areas need to be represented equally. Do all of a course’s projected outcomes hold the same importance, or should some be emphasized over others?  Driscoll notes that not all outcomes are equally important, and that more time and attention should be given to the most important goals; teachers should prioritize their outcomes and decide in which order to present material (p 166).

An example of the above in my field of early childhood education is that one should teach students about little children before teaching them what to do with children. In most cases, Child Development I and II are taught in the first two years of college, sometimes concurrently with curriculum courses such as Music and Movement with Children, Creative Activities with Children, or Science in the Preschool Classroom.  For one of the curriculum classes a teacher could use the course alignment concept by outlining the outcomes, filling in the class readings, activities, and assignments, and then mapping out everything. More weight should be given to child growth and development throughout curriculum courses than the curriculum itself.  For example, if I am planning to teach a group of pre-service preschool teachers about how to teach science to three year old children, I first need to talk to my students about what a three year old child can do, how a three year old thinks, and what is not age appropriate for a three year old.  One wouldn’t expect to teach a three year old how to mix chemicals, but one could put food coloring in water and have children that age mix the colors. 

I am pleased to note that two courses I’m taking this semester each have a very nicely designed syllabus. I know what is expected and when it is due. The readings and assignments are clear.  In both courses, detailed explanation of large assignments has been given in separate documents, which helps me feel more confident in my ability to complete everything than if the instructions were incorporated in the syllabus.