Farrow, C B and Leathem, T (2021) The syllabus as a tool to enhance teaching & learning in construction education. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 17(3), pp. 201-221. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
As the first item often distributed each semester, the syllabus sets expectations and requirements for the educational experience. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach to syllabi design attempts to consider the ways students are engaged, how information is represented, and learning expressed. If syllabi could be built on an UDL framework, a potential for enhanced learning exists. This study examined 33 syllabi from schools of construction. Objectives of the study included determining most and least prevalent UDL elements in construction syllabi, UDL elements absent from construction syllabi, and determining to what degree construction syllabi correlate with elements of UDL that students deem most important. Two faculty members evaluated each of the 33 syllabi individually. Overall results indicated syllabi at almost every level of the considered UDL criteria. Areas of highest UDL inclusion were in “length”, “student resources”, and “course calendar”. Lowest scores were in areas related to assignment information. Areas of UDL important to students did not match the highest scoring areas of this study. Results suggest improvements could be made in syllabi that may better meet UDL criteria and better align with student syllabi preferences.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction education; learning expectations; student engagement; syllabus; universal design for learning |
| Index terms: | student engagement, preference, construction education |
| Subjects: | decision-making and reasoning, professional education, student development |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here