Content uploaded by Bryan Saville
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bryan Saville on Aug 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [James Madison University]
On: 17 January 2013, At: 05:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching of Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htop20
Syllabus Detail and Students’ Perceptions of Teacher
Effectiveness
Bryan K. Saville a , Tracy E. Zinn a , Allison R. Brown a & Kimberly A. Marchuk a
a James Madison University
Version of record first published: 14 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Bryan K. Saville , Tracy E. Zinn , Allison R. Brown & Kimberly A. Marchuk (2010): Syllabus Detail and
Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness, Teaching of Psychology, 37:3, 186-189
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.488523
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Teaching of Psychology, 37: 186–189, 2010
Copyright C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0098-6283 print / 1532-8023 online
DOI: 10.1080/00986283.2010.488523
Syllabus Detail and Students’ Perceptions
of Teacher Effectiveness
Bryan K. Saville, Tracy E. Zinn, Allison R. Brown, and Kimberly A. Marchuk
James Madison University
Although syllabi provide students with important course
information, they can also affect perceptions of teaching
effectiveness. To test this idea, we distributed 2 versions of
a hypothetical course syllabus, a brief version and a detailed
version, and asked students to rate the teacher of the course
on qualities associated with master teaching. Students in
the detailed syllabus group rated the teacher as possessing
more of these qualities; they were also more likely to report
that they would recommend the course to others and take
another course from the teacher. Thus, in addition to serving
a communicative function, a detailed syllabus might signal
to students that their teacher is competent and wants them
to do well.
A common practice among college teachers is to
provide students with a syllabus that contains impor-
tant course information. Because the syllabus serves as
a road map of sorts, psychology teachers have debated
about how best to construct one (e.g., Forsyth, 2003;
McKeachie, 2002). One question that often receives
attention is how much detail to include on a syllabus
(cf. Becker & Calhoon, 1999).
In general, most experts agree that a detailed syllabus
is better because it provides students with important
course information (e.g., Appleby, 1999; Davis, 1993).
However, a detailed course syllabus might serve an-
other function: It might alter students’ perceptions of
teaching effectiveness. For example, whereas a detailed
syllabus could communicate that a teacher cares about
his or her students—one quality of effective teachers
(Buskist, Sikorski, Buckley, & Saville, 2002)—a less
detailed syllabus could signal that a teacher is not in-
terested in students’ learning or is not approachable
(Appleby, 1999; McKeachie, 2002).
Although this idea seemed feasible, we found no
study that examined whether syllabus detail affected
students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Thus,
the purpose of this study was to examine if manipulat-
ing the amount of information contained in a hypo-
thetical course syllabus affected students’ perceptions
of teacher effectiveness.
Method
Participants
Participants were 97 students (16 men, 81 women)
enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses at James
Madison University. Our sample consisted of 2 fresh-
men, 36 sophomores, 39 juniors, and 20 seniors. The
students received partial course credit for participating.
Materials and Procedure
After obtaining consent, we distributed two versions
of a hypothetical introductory psychology syllabus: a
brief version (n=47) and a detailed version (n=50).
The syllabi contained the same general information
but differed in their amount of detail.
The brief version of the syllabus was two pages long
and contained the teacher’s name (“Dr. Pat Edwards,”
to maintain gender neutrality) and contact informa-
tion, course objectives, the name of the textbook, a
brief description of course assignments (e.g., “There
will be six exams this semester”), a grade distribu-
tion, a brief statement of course policies (e.g., make-up
and attendance policies), and a calendar listing when
assignments were due. The detailed version, which
was six pages long, contained the same information
as the brief version but included more information
186 Teaching of Psychology
Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 05:54 17 January 2013
Table 1. Ratings for 12 Qualities From the Teacher Behavior Checklist (TBC), Descriptive Data (Means,
Standard Deviations), and Effect Size Estimates (η2
p
)
Detailed Syllabus Brief Syllabus
TBC Quality
MSDMSD
Effect Size (η
2
p
)
Approachable/personable 3.17 .62∗∗ 2.55 .72 .18
Creative/interesting 3.45 .55∗∗ 2.64 .79 .27
Effective communicator 3.05 .69∗∗ 2.47 .60 .17
Encouraging/cares for students 3.12 .63∗∗ 2.13 .91 .30
Enthusiastic 3.60 .54∗∗ 2.41 .92 .40
Flexible/open-minded 2.97 .57∗2.41 .63 .18
Happy/positive attitude 2.75 .72 2.74 .54 .00
Knowledgeable 3.75 .44∗∗ 2.97 .79 .29
Prepared 3.38 .70∗2.81 .86 .12
Present current information 3.53 .73∗∗ 2.50 .81 .32
Promotes critical thinking 3.50 .61∗∗ 2.88 .64 .20
Realistic expectations/fair 3.06 .66∗∗ 2.16 .69 .32
Note.
TBC =Teacher Behavior Checklist.
∗
p
<.003. ∗∗
p
<.001.
about each item. For example, whereas the brief syl-
labus mentioned only that there would be six exams,
the detailed syllabus mentioned the types of ques-
tions (e.g., essay, multiple-choice) that would appear
on each. Similarly, whereas the calendar on the short
syllabus listed only due dates for assignments, the de-
tailed syllabus listed which chapters the teacher would
cover each day and which chapters would appear on
exams.
After students reviewed the syllabi, we distributed a
survey that contained 26 items. The first 4 items asked
questions about syllabus content (e.g., How many ex-
ams are there?), which allowed us to determine whether
students had attended to the syllabus. The next
14 items consisted of qualities from the Teacher Behav-
ior Checklist (TBC; Buskist et al., 2002). We included
the top 10 qualities that students from Buskist et al.’s
study rated as representative of master teachers (6 of
which faculty also placed in their top 10 list) and 4 qual-
ities that faculty, but not students, included in their top
10 list (see Table 1). Students rated on a 4-point Likert-
type scale (1 =very unlikely, 4=very likely)howlikelyit
was that Dr. Edwards possessed each TBC quality. The
next 5 items asked participants to rate on a 4-point
Likert-type scale (1 =strongly disagree, 4=strongly
agree) whether (a) they would take this course, (b) they
would recommend this course to others, (c) they would
take another course from Dr. Edwards, (d) this course
seemed difficult, and (e) Dr. Edwards seemed diffi-
cult. Finally, participants answered three demographic
questions.
Results
At least 88% of participants in the detailed syllabus
group and 93% of participants in the brief syllabus
group answered each of the first four items correctly.
To determine more precisely whether there were group
differences in the number of participants who answered
each question correctly or incorrectly, we ran four chi-
square analyses. We found no significant differences
between groups on any of the items (all χ2s<2.00, all
ps>.05). Together, these results suggest that partic-
ipants in both groups attended to information on the
syllabi. We also observed that participants’ answers on
the first four questions were not significantly correlated
with their answers on any of the TBC items (all ps>
.05).
Next, we examined whether syllabus detail affected
students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. After
data collection, we noticed a typographical error on
our survey; we unknowingly distributed surveys that
had two TBC qualities, respectful and understanding,
printed on the same line. As such, we did not analyze
student responses for these two qualities. Our final anal-
yses, therefore, consisted of 17 independent-samples
ttests, 12 for the TBC qualities and 5 for the remaining
questions about the course. To control for familywise
error rate, we used a Bonferroni correction (α=
.05/17 =.003). As Table 1 shows, there were signifi-
cant differences (all ps<.003) between the groups on
every TBC quality except one: Happy/positive attitude.
In each case, participants in the detailed syllabus group
Vol. 37, No. 3, 2010 187
Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 05:54 17 January 2013
rated the teacher as possessing more of that quality than
participants in the brief syllabus group. In addition,
students who viewed the detailed syllabus (M=2.91)
were more likely ( p=.002, η2
p=.13) than students in
the brief syllabus group (M=2.31) to report that they
would recommend the course to another student. Stu-
dents in the detailed syllabus group (M=2.86) were
also more likely ( p<.001, η2
p=.21) than students
who viewed the brief syllabus (M=2.16) to report
that they would take another course from the teacher.
Additionally, although students in the detailed
syllabus group (M=2.96) were slightly more likely
than students in the brief syllabus group (M=2.60) to
report that they would take the course depicted in the
syllabus, the difference was not large enough to pro-
duce a significant outcome at our corrected alpha level
(p=.03). Finally, there were no significant differences
(ps>.80) between the detailed syllabus group and the
brief syllabus group in the extent to which they viewed
the course (Ms=2.33 and 2.38, respectively) or
teacher (Ms=2.45 and 2.43, respectively) as difficult.
Discussion
We asked students to examine a brief or detailed ver-
sion of an introductory psychology syllabus and rate a
hypothetical teacher on characteristics associated with
master teaching. We found that students who viewed
the detailed syllabus were more likely to rate our hypo-
thetical teacher as possessing the qualities of a master
teacher. In addition, students who viewed the detailed
syllabus were more likely to report that they would rec-
ommend the course to a friend and take another course
from the teacher. These results did not seem to depend
on students’ perceptions of course or teacher difficulty.
McKeachie (2002) suggested that a less organized
syllabus might signal to students that their teacher
does not care about them. So, too, might a less de-
tailed syllabus signal to students that their teacher
does not care about them. Students in our study who
viewed a detailed version of a syllabus were more
likely to rate a hypothetical teacher as being ap-
proachable, caring, and flexible—interpersonal char-
acteristics that students tend to associate with excep-
tional teaching (Buskist et al., 2002; Schaeffer, Epting,
Zinn, & Buskist, 2003). We also found that students
who viewed the detailed syllabus rated a hypotheti-
cal teacher as being, among other qualities, more pre-
pared, cognizant of current information, and promotive
of critical thinking—characteristics that many faculty
see as the nuts and bolts of effective teaching (Buskist
et al., 2002).
Although we observed that most students in our
study attended to important aspects of the syllabus they
received, regardless of whether the syllabus was detailed
or brief, it is certainly possible that some students might
not read a more detailed course syllabus—especially
when there are no requirements for doing so (Becker
& Calhoon, 1999; Raymark & Connor-Greene, 2002).
Nevertheless, the pros of having a detailed syllabus
likely outweigh the cons. Detailed syllabi serve a com-
municative function, providing students with impor-
tant information about a course. A detailed syllabus,
however, might also serve a motivating function if it
communicates to students that their teacher is com-
petent and wants them to do well. When all is said
and done, the actual experiences that students have in
their classrooms will likely have the greatest effect on
their perceptions of teaching effectiveness, but provid-
ing students with a more detailed syllabus might be a
simple way to foster positive attitudes toward a teacher,
thus providing a context in which teachers can have
the greatest impact on their students.
References
Appleby, D. C. (1999). How to improve your teaching
with the course syllabus. In B. Perlman, L. I. McCann, &
S. H. McFadden (Eds.), Lessons learned: Practical advice for
the teaching of psychology (pp. 19–24). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Society.
Becker, A. H., & Calhoon, S. K. (1999). What introduc-
tory psychology students attend to on a course syllabus.
Teaching of Psychology, 26, 6–11.
Buskist, W., Sikorski, J., Buckley, T., & Saville, B. K. (2002).
Elements of master teaching. In S. F. Davis & W. Buskist
(Eds.), The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert
J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer (pp. 27–39). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Forsyth, D. R. (2003). The professor’s guide to teaching: Psycho-
logical principles and practices. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strate-
gies, research, and theory for college and university teachers
(11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Raymark, P. H., & Connor-Greene, P. A. (2002). The syl-
labus quiz. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 286–288.
Schaeffer, G., Epting, K., Zinn, T., & Buskist, W. (2003).
Student and faculty perceptions of effective teaching: A
successful replication. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 133–136.
188 Teaching of Psychology
Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 05:54 17 January 2013
Notes
1. We presented a preliminary version of our data at the
2007 Association for Psychological Science conference
in Washington, DC.
2. Send correspondence to Bryan K. Saville or Tracy E.
Zinn, Department of Psychology, MSC 7704, James
Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; e-mail:
savillbk@jmu.edu or zinnte@jmu.edu.
Vol. 37, No. 3, 2010 189
Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 05:54 17 January 2013
