The 21st-Century Syllabus

Abstract

While the scholarship of teaching and learning literature has made great advances in our understanding of how learning might best occur, the syllabus as a teaching and learning tool appears to have been almost completely left out of the developmental conversation. Overwhelmingly, extant literature about syllabi and their use focuses on operational course norms-what to include, policies to be delineated, structural aspects to be covered. However, the student development literature and in particular, the Generation Y age cohort literature, indicates that information processing norms may increasingly degrade students' ability to use course syllabi for their intended purpose. In this article, we explore how and why the role of a course syllabus has changed, particularly in the management education realm, using the andragogy literature to frame the discussion. Employing four analytic frames from the current syllabus development literaturesyllabus as contract, as power, as communication or signaling device, and as collaboration-we offer current and andragogically revised excerpts from our own syllabi as part of the conversation.

Competitive Moves: The Influence of Industry Context and Individual Cognitive Factors

“…Active engagement and successful performances can help develop self-efficacy and social identity (Smith & Woodworth, 2012). Finally, Fornaciari and Lund Dean (2014) suggest that one of the generally accepted principles of andragogy is that "adults learn through trial-and-error experience" (p. 702).…”

“…Probably, the most influential contribution to the discourse about pedagogicalor andragogicalframeworks has recently been made by Fornaciari and Lund Dean (2014); their discussion of "The 21st century syllabus" certainly is at the core of our methodological approach (see further down). Based on respective student development literature about the Generation Y they "explore how and why the role of a course syllabus has changed, particularly in the management education realm, using the andragogy literature to frame the discussion" (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2014, p. 701).…”

College Philosophy and Teaching

“…A change in philosophy denotes an andragogical philosophy of teaching much to the antithesis of pedagogical teaching. Importantly, to initiate a self-evaluation of structural aspects, information-processing norms, thus are purported delineations leading to proficient levels of teaching (Fornaciari, & Dean, 2014).…”

The thinking behind the action (learning)

“…The board sought to adopt the critical aspects of effective executive education: that it be intimately tied to anticipating and causing industry change, that it focuses on the centrality of active distributive leadership and that it engages participants in activities that translate into action plans linked to actual organizational outcomes desired by their institution (Myrsiades, 2001). The syllabi needed to act as a teaching and learning support in this regard (Fornaciari and Lund Dean, 2014), returning the development team to the drawing board in relation to module design. Program development meetings highlighted the evolution of learning through applied inter-related modules, and subsequent application of learning in a live environment.…”

“…The board acknowledged that this approach would result in a move toward a more andragogical frame in management education (Cunningham, 1999;Fornaciari and Lund Dean, 2014;Knowles, 1980), where the academic acts as learning facilitator and knowledge generation is more participative (Bilimoria, 1998;Francis and Cowan, 2008;Olsson et al, 2008). Thus, it was considered prudent to initiate a tutor partnership program to run alongside the inaugural program delivery.…”