8 “It’s in the syllabus!”: Occlusion and Exclusion in Classroom Genres

While first-year university students have learned and regularly use a number of genres, most are still developing their understanding of genre as an explicit concept. When asked to define the term, they often describe it, quite correctly, as a way of classifying popular media like movies, TV shows, music, and books. For example, a streaming service will label a new show as “romance” or “horror” to help viewers find their preferred kind of story. Educational researchers argue that students of academic writing benefit from expanding and enriching their view of genre. In Writing About Writing, a textbook for first-year undergraduates, Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs (2020) explain that genres are not only a way to classify texts but are “recognizable forms of writing that respond to repeating situations” (p. 34).

Genre scholars stress that when we use genres, we are “both organizing and generating kinds of texts and social actions, in complex, dynamic relation to one another” (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 4). In other words, when we as readers or writers decide to use a particular genre, we consider more than how the genre classifies texts or whether we are using the most correct example of it. We choose genres based on what they will allow us to do: that is, what social actions they will help us perform. For example, the genre of the research essay responds to a “repeating situation” in which a scholar is presenting their research to readers: it has the social function of communicating information and ideas, and of establishing the scholar’s academic credibility.

The course syllabus–the subject of this chapter–is a classroom genre that responds to the “repeating situation” of course delivery. In North American universities, the syllabus or course outline assists students, instructors, and administrators in performing the many complex social actions that make up a course. In the context of a first-year course, one of those actions is introducing students to their new academic environment and new expectations. The syllabus serves the social function of putting students and professors “on the same page,” enabling a discussion between them about how the course will unfold. However, while instructors customarily review the course syllabus at the start of term, they spend little time familiarizing incoming students with the syllabus as a genre and with how they as readers can make the best use of it. To address this gap, this article will clarify the purpose of the syllabus (or syllabi in the plural) as it is used in North American universities. It will then explore the ways that syllabi, like all classroom genres, reflect the academic institutions in which they act. Studying the syllabus as a genre and examining the social actions it performs demonstrate how universities both create and limit educational possibilities.

Though the format of syllabi can vary greatly according to instructor, course topic, and institutional context, in most cases, the syllabus functions (1) as a contract, (2) as a permanent record, and (3) as a learning tool (Neaderhiser, 2016; Parkes & Harris, 2002). Firstly, while not a legally binding contract, the syllabus represents an informal agreement between instructor(s) and students about their roles and responsibilities. For example, students commit to submitting an assignment by the deadline, while the instructor commits to returning feedback within a particular time frame. The syllabus also includes policies on attendance, submitting late work, academic integrity, and accessibility. Secondly, the syllabus provides instructors, students, and university administrators with a permanent record of the course itself, such as its title, instructor(s), content, and place in the larger university curriculum. Lastly, but most importantly for students, the syllabus serves as a learning tool, helping them access resources that support their learning. These may include the contact information and availability of their instructors, referrals to campus resources such as the library, academic skills support, and accessibility services, or advice on studying and time management.

University instructors well-versed in the North American academic context tend to assume that syllabi and their usage are self-evident, requiring little explanation or clarification. However, for most incoming undergraduates, the syllabus is an “occluded” genre, meaning that they have had limited access to examples or instruction on how to use it (Neaderhiser, 2016; Swales, 1996). Instructors may bear some responsibility for this occlusion. When instructors understand their syllabus as a kind of contract, they may produce a text that resembles an actual legal contract, with complex language and technical terms that many first-year students will find hard to follow. Instructors also tend to treat their syllabi as comprehensive, covering every possible situation that might arise, and can be reluctant to revisit or adjust their syllabi even in the face of unforeseen circumstances or in response to constructive feedback from students.

In the case of international students, previous exposure to the genre may not help them acclimate to their new educational setting. As the western university model was adopted globally due to colonial and imperialist expansion, so were syllabi (Ford & jules, 2023; Mazawi & Stack, 2020). However, there can be significant differences in their purpose and content across academic cultures, with syllabi sometimes appearing “as tables of contents, as an outline of a program of study, or as a list of lectures” (Mazawi & Stack, 2020, p. 3). For example, in North American universities, students are the primary audience for syllabi, which are meant to be a guide to all aspects of the learning experience created by the course. Conversely, in Chinese universities, syllabi, read mainly by instructors and university administrators, guide the teaching experience and explain how the course fits into the larger curriculum of the department and university. All instructors who teach the course are expected to adhere to the topics, materials, teaching methods, and learning outcomes outlined in these official, centralized syllabi (Guo et al., 2012).

Syllabi tend to reproduce exclusionary power relationships still common in academic institutions. Students have little to no say over the structure, content, and marking practices of courses designed by their instructors (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Mazawi & Stack, 2020; Womack, 2017). Moreover, because they were trained according to the western university model, instructors in North America tend to privilege western knowledge production when choosing topics and readings to include in, or exclude from, their syllabi. This predisposition reinforces racist, colonialist, and linguicist assumptions about whose knowledge is worth knowing (Ford & jules, 2023; Mazawi & Stack, 2020). Systemic ableism also persists in university communities. Until recently, instructors rarely considered students with disabilities as potential users of their syllabi. Although the awareness and application of accessible pedagogies has grown, instructors still struggle to design syllabi that are more accessible not only to disabled students, but to all students (Womack, 2017).

When students learn to understand genres not just as categories, but also as forms of social action, they will inevitably become more effective users of genres like the syllabus. As we have seen, the syllabus helps both instructors and students create a shared understanding of the content and administration of a course. However, it can also limit students’ ability to participate in that process by relying on overly legalistic and complex language, or by assuming that the genre itself is transparent and comprehensive. Instructors, especially first-year instructors, can address these issues by using more accessible language, by taking time on the first day of class to introduce students to the genre and its applications in the North American context, and by inviting student feedback. Students can address limitations by reading the syllabus critically, by revisiting it as the term progresses, and by providing constructive feedback to instructors. By critically considering both the educational potential and the shortcomings of the syllabus as a genre, students and teachers can together challenge the occlusions and exclusions enacted in it.

References

Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/referenceguides/bawarshi-reiff/

Ford, D. Y., & jules, t. d. (2023, November 7). Decolonizing higher education syllabi: Beyond the aesthetics of the syllabus. Diverse: Issues in higher education. https://www.diverseeducation.com/opinion/article/15636643/decolonizing-higher-education-syllabi-beyond-the-aesthetics-of-the-syllabus

Guo, F., Wang, P., & Fitzgerald, S. (2012). Syllabus design across different cultures between America and China. In K. S. Thaung (Ed.), Advanced information technology in education (pp. 55–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25908-1_8

Mazawi, A. E., & Stack, M. (2020). Introduction. In A. E. Mazawi & M. Stack (Eds.), Course syllabi in faculties of education: Bodies of knowledge and their discontents, international and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–18). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350094277.0005

Neaderhiser, S. E. (2016). Hidden in plain sight: Occlusion in pedagogical genres. Composition Forum, 33. https://compositionforum.com/issue/33/hidden.php

Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875

Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45–58). John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.06swa

Wardle, E., & Downs, D. (2020). Writing about writing (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Womack, A.-M. (2017). Teaching is accommodation: Universally designing composition classrooms and syllabi. College Composition and Communication, 68(3), 494–525. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201728964