A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

Nessie the Mythical Loch Ness Monster Rivals the Mythical SoTL Syllabus Scale
As mythical and mysterious as Nessie the Loch Ness Monster, research on syllabus construction
and best practices has shown equal mystery and elusiveness. However, the syllabus has
received some SoTL attention, as of late, as a key element to best practices in higher education
instruction (e.g., Boysen, Richmond, & Gurung, 2015; Richmond et al., 2014; Slattery & Carlson,
2005). For example, the syllabus can have an immense (positive or negative) impact on how
students perceive teaching effectiveness (Richmond, Becknell, Slattery, Morgan, & Mitchell,
2015; Saville, Zinn, Brown, & Marchuk, 2010). As this body of research grows, the need to
assess syllabi, both reliably and validly, becomes more and more important. To date, the only
SoTL scale to evaluate syllabi was developed by Cullen and Harris (2009). Cullen and Harris
created a rubric to assess the degree to which a syllabus is considered to be learning-centered
as opposed to teacher-centered. In the rubric, they describe three main factors (e.g.,
community, power and control, and evaluation/assessment). Within each main factor there are
several subfactors. See Table 1 for a complete list and description. The scale is measured on a
categorical level from 1 (more teacher-centered) to 4 (more learner-centered) rated by the
instructor, not by students. For example, if a syllabus was learner-centered it would have a
learning rationale that had a “rational provided for assignments, activities, methods, policies,
and procedures; tied to learning outcomes” (p. 123).
Table 1
Cullen and Harris (2009) Rubric Assessing Learner-Centered Syllabi
Factors and Sub Factors
Community Power and Control Evaluation/Assessment
Accessibility of Teacher Teacher’s Role Grades
Learning Rationale Student’s Role Feedback Mechanisms
Collaboration Outside Resources Evaluation
Syllabus Tone
Learning Outcomes
Syllabus Focus
Revision/Redoing
Whereas, if the syllabus were teacher-centered it would have a learning rationale that had “no
rationale provided for assignments or activities” (p. 123). Unfortunately, there are a number of
issues with this SoTL measure. First, the level of measurement is categorical. That is, the rubric
is on a 1-4 rubric/scale that only describes categories or degrees of level of learnercenteredness.
Because of this level of measurement it makes it almost impossible to
understand a factor-structure to the scale, and assess reliability and validity. Second, although a
few studies have used the rubric (e.g., Slattery et al., 2014), there is virtually no further
evidence that may suggest how reliable or valid the scale is. Third, this rubric only takes the
pedagogical perspective of student-centered instruction. There are several other effective
forms of pedagogies that should also be assessed as valuable tools for syllabus construction
(e.g., Inter-teaching, Just-in-time teaching, etc.).
Based on my review of the Cullen and Harris (2009) SoTL rubric and the lack of any other SoTL
scales that assess syllabi, I suggest two major directions in this area of SoTL. First, SoTL
175