Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Ariel Ropp
As an undergraduate student at Goshen College, I took two womens studies courses that
had a profound impact on my awareness, passion, and engagement with issues surrounding
feminism and social justice. For this reason, I decided to analyze and reflect upon course syllabi
from the field of womens studies for my first case study. I intentionally chose syllabi from
colleges and universities that represent different geographic regions, enrollment sizes, and
institutional types: Barnard College, Loyola University Chicago, Northern Arizona University,
Portland State University, and the University of Pittsburgh. The following case study will
summarize these five course syllabi, identify trends and divergences, and integrate key concepts
from Bransford (1999), Fink (2003), and Nilson (2010) related to curriculum development.
Descriptive Analysis
To start, I reviewed several course syllabi from introductory womens studies courses
similar to the one I took in college. At Loyola University Chicago, Dr. Lombardi-Diops WSGS
101 Introduction to Womens Studies and Gender Studies course introduces students to key
concepts and theories in the fields of womens studies and gender studies, exploring the
manifestation of gender and sex in social, economic, and political contexts. This course is
divided into three units, with each week covering a topic related to its overarching unit. Dr.
students to lead class discussions in small groups. Course assignments include three take-home
essays, a midterm exam on course texts and discussions, and a final group presentation on a
contemporary issue or case study of the groups choice. Both the group discussion leadership
assignment and the final group project provide opportunities for students to develop their
teamwork and leadership capacities, illustrating Finks (2003) human dimension of significant
learning.
University. Dr. Reitenauers section of WS 101 Introduction to Womens Studies at PSU centers
on inclusive dialogue, which is reflected in the relatively high percentage of points (33%)
dedicated to attendance and participation. At the beginning of the course, Dr. Reitenauer asks
each student to create an individual course plan that articulates their goals for the course, states
the steps they will take to achieve those goals, and identifies which optional assignments they
will complete in the course. Students must select three out of six possible assignments, with
choices ranging from interviewing a self-described feminist, to creating a visual mind map of a
key course concept. These sorts of experiential and creative assignments invite students to
connect new knowledge to existing knowledge and help students learn content by engaging with
it multiple times through different mediums (Nilson, 2010). In addition, students are asked to
choose a book from an approved list, participate in a small reading group led by a student
mentor, and present on the books themes in front of the class. The course ends with students
sharing individual final projects in one of several forms: an academic paper, a creative project, or
an extended form of activism accompanied with a reflection paper. Thus, this syllabus offers
Beyond introductory courses, I also analyzed three syllabi from 200- and 300-level
womens studies courses at various U.S. institutions of higher education. The first of these is Dr.
Crosbys GSWS 0200 Sex, Race, and Popular Culture course at the University of Pittsburgh.
This course focuses on the intersection of gender and race in pop culture, and as such, includes
regular class dialogues on assigned texts, videos, and songs. Students are expected to prepare for
daily class discussions by creating a thought card that includes a takeaway from the assigned
exercises sometimes involve self-reflection time and group activities. The course also includes
midterm and final exams covering key concepts and a critical media analysis project that
students must present in front of their peers. Finally, students are required to attend an event
hosted by the womens studies program and write a thoughtful reflection on the events themes.
This assignment in particular encourages student to connect what they are learning in class with
community events outside the classroom, which can promote significant learning (Fink, 2003).
At Barnard College, Dr. Campts WST V3311 Colloquium in Feminist Theory: Race,
Gender, Bodies course explores how feminists theorize human bodies. The course is divided into
two units: Critical Frameworks, which teaches key terms and tools of inquiry, and Sites of
Interpretation, which focuses on utilizing critical tools to analyze various texts. These units
reflect two types of significant learning identified by Fink (2003): foundational knowledge and
application, respectively. During the first half of the course, students create biweekly blog posts
about key concepts (e.g., race, identity), then collaboratively revise and elaborate upon their blog
posts to create a midterm glossary of terms. In the second unit, groups of students lead 50-
minute dialogues by developing discussion questions and writing blog prompts to which the rest
of the class responds. The course ends with a final paper that requires students to apply their
The final discussion-based feminist theory course in my case study is WGS 300w
Feminist Theories at Northern Arizona University. Taught by Dr. Hackstaff, this writing-
intensive seminar course is divided into two units, each with its own learning objectives, weekly
topics, and guiding questions. To encourage thoughtful discussions, the course requires students
to write short, weekly reflection papers that address the assigned readings and include questions
for discussion. Students must also create a large research paper, due in smaller, more
manageable chunks throughout the semester: topic and outline, bibliography, first draft, and final
paper. This large paper gives students the chance to learn how to manage a complex project,
which is a form of applicative learning (Fink, 2003). Between the first draft and final paper, Dr.
Hackstaff provides feedback and has a mini-conference with each student to ensure they succeed
on the final project. Offering opportunities for students to hear critical feedback and revise their
Comparative Analysis
As I read through these five course syllabi, several trends emerged across the courses. To
start, all but one syllabus Barnard College include explicit learning outcomes or objectives.
The remaining four syllabi largely feature learning outcomes that Fink (2003) would classify as
Examples of foundational knowledge include the ability to identify and explain key concepts,
theories, and themes in womens studies and gender studies (Loyola) and understanding of
feminist theories their assumptions, applications, insights, and oversights (Northern Arizona).
Given that the academy has historically privileged knowledge acquisition over other forms of
learning, it is perhaps unsurprising that foundational knowledge is the most common kind of
learning in these syllabi. According to Fink (2003), foundational knowledge is a necessary but
practice (Fink, 2003). While several courses include learning outcomes about developing critical
thinking skills, few of these syllabi focus on other forms of thinking, such as practical or creative
thinking. Here, application usually takes the form of critically analyzing gender in society, e.g.,
Use readings in feminist and critical race theory to systematically analyze popular culture
elements of Finks human dimension of learning are also visible in most of the syllabi I
examined. The human dimension, which focuses on learning about self and other, is reflected in
such outcomes as Understanding womens experiences across nations and in global systems
(Northern Arizona). Although most of the syllabi include outcomes related to learning about
others, I was surprised there were not more learning outcomes about personal identity growth,
self-awareness, ethics, or teamwork. Only one of the five syllabi Portland State University
contained explicit human dimension learning outcomes that reflect Bransfords (1999)
environment, and reflect on our successes and failures as a collaborative, inclusive learning
community (Portland State). Finks other forms of significant learning (e.g., integration, caring,
and learning how to learn) appear infrequently or not at all in these five syllabi. It seems to me
that caring and learning how to learn may be regarded by some professors as a peripheral goal or
Next, I examined course activities and assignments to assess how well each of these five
syllabi structures achieves its stated learning objectives. I immediately noticed that all five
courses feature regular class dialogues on assigned texts, with four requiring pre-dialogue self-
reflection. Research suggests that students do not learn well if they are in a passive state for a
long period of time (e.g., listening to a lecture), and dialogues can be an excellent way to keep
students minds engaged through active participation (Nilson, 2010). In particular, class
discussions offer students the opportunity to develop critical thinking through questioning the
readings as well as the reflections of others in the course (Northern Arizona). Fink (2003)
classifies critical thinking as a form of applicative learning in which students learn to analyze
and evaluate the quality of interpretations and explanations. In the five courses I reviewed, each
syllabus takes a slightly different approach to fostering critical reflection and dialogue. For
example, students may be expected to prepare for classroom discussions by identifying and
reflecting upon a meaningful quote from the assigned readings (Portland State), writing a short
reflection on the readings and generating questions for discussion (Northern Arizona),
responding to texts with a blog post (Barnard), or preparing a note card with a central take-away
from the reading (Pittsburgh). By combining reflection and discussion, these courses help
students to first recognize their own thoughts and reactions to course material, and then expand
Beyond teacher-led dialogues, I noticed that a few courses offered opportunities for
students to have an even greater influence over their own learning. For example, in both the
Loyola and Barnard syllabi, students are expected to guide one or more class discussions in small
groups as a significant portion (20 percent) of their total class grade. At Barnard, the students
must create a list of thought-provoking questions, write a blog post for the class to view, and lead
a 50-minute dialogue. This approach shifts the role of teacher by empowering students to take
control of their learning and co-construct knowledge as a group (Bransford, 1999). Another form
of active learning that I identified in my case study is Dr. Reitenauers use of individual course
plans at Portland State. This assignment fosters students metacognition and agency by asking
them to name their goals at the beginning of the course, create a plan for assessing their progress,
decide which assignments would be most meaningful for their learning, and reflect on their
learning at the end of the semester. Curriculum design that promotes metacognition has been
shown to increase the likelihood that students will successfully transfer their learning to other
settings (Bransford, 1999), yet the Portland State syllabus was the only course in my case
analysis to blatantly include a metacognitive goal plan. This suggests that some professors have
Conclusion
The five syllabi in my case study incorporate several key concepts identified by
Bransford (1999), Fink (2003), and Nilson (2010), though some of them fail to address all of the
best practices noted in this weeks readings. Most of my five syllabi reflect elements of a
course content and apply critical thinking skills through reflection and dialogue (Bransford,
1999). The syllabi also incorporate some aspects of community-centered learning through their
use of regular discussions, though most failed to articulate how class dialogues would foster
generally not emphasized in the majority of these syllabi, with the notable exception of Portland
State. On the whole, the Portland State syllabus stood out for including a variety of high-impact
teaching and learning practices highlighted in the literature: metacognitive reflections, small-
group learning, service-learning opportunities, formative and summative assessments, and co-
constructed assignments. Although all of the syllabi generally avoided common curricular
blunders (e.g., an over-emphasis on lectures and rote memorization), it was helpful to see how a
syllabus could take learning to the next level by including multiple experiential components.
References
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Ch. 1).
University of Pittsburgh
Website: http://www.wstudies.pitt.edu/resources/curriculum-resources
Word document (download): http://www.wstudies.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/Crosby_GSWS
%200200.docx