Many instructors want their syllabi to help create inclusive learning environments, but in practice it is hard to anticipate how our students will interpret our language, especially because what they consider to be incomprehensible academic jargon is largely dictated by their previous educational experiences. When tackling this challenge, many institutions offer a university glossary of common terms to help level the proverbial playing field. However, this approach is inherently flawed; who determines which words to include, how quickly will the glossary become outdated, and how can it possibly contain every necessary word or concept necessary without becoming an overwhelmingly large document? Moreover, to provide a glossary is to take a deficit approach to serving students insofar as it assumes first-generation and other diverse student populations are lacking, and therefore need remedial education in order to reach the level of the rest of the student body. But first-generation students make up a significant portion of students – about one third according to the U.S. Department of Education (Cataldi et al., 2018). Therefore we offer alternate syllabus strategies based on feedback from first-generation students at Oregon State University that promote confidence and better support student learning.
Situating Students as Experts
In November 2022, as part of National First-Generation College Celebration, OSU’s First! Committee organized a “Break the Code” social event providing an opportunity for first-gen students to meet each other and mingle while lending their perspectives to help OSU meet institutional goals set as part of our participation in NASPA’s First-gen Forward Cohort. Nineteen students gathered to eat pizza and review syllabi from popular courses. Frequently conversing with each other and with committee volunteers, they highlighted confusing terms and statements and added annotations to signal what they liked and what they would change.
Breaking Down Academic Jargon
Much of the first-gen students’ feedback identified words they didn’t know or didn’t understand in a particular context. In other words, jargon specific to academia:
- Academic concepts related to upcoming course material (such as “quantum” or “precis”)
Some of the flagged terms were related to concepts that would be covered in the course, which led us to wonder if instructors might consider being explicit, either in the syllabus or in class, about the fact that students are not expected to already know such words, but can look forward to being able to define them by the end of the term.
- General higher education jargon (such as “cumulative,” “prerequisite,” and “co-requisite”)
More commonly, participants highlighted terms students presumably encounter in variety of university contexts, including institutional websites. In these cases, it could be helpful to use a more common synonym or rephrase in a more descriptive way. For example, “The final includes information covered since the midterm” instead of “the final is not cumulative”. One small group discussion revealed that one student knew what “proctored” meant and the other didn’t; the one who did said they had learned it as part of their preparation to take an AP exam, which we know is an experience that not all students share, nor are expected to share in order to be successful in college.
Students also questioned more unexpected syllabus elements, including:
- DEI statements (“is this statement meant for me?)
These examples revealed the extent to which syllabus language can invoke cultural norms and assumptions in less obvious ways than jargon. At our event, one course’s DEI statement was labeled as “Nice!” by one student. In a different course’s similar statement, however, the terms “underrepresented,” “marginalized,” and “socioeconomic” were circled by another student to indicate confusion. We were struck by the possibility that some of the very students instructors seek to welcome with statements of inclusivity may not feel recognized by such umbrella terms. For this reason, more specific and direct language associated with identity—such as “students of color,” “working class,” or “disabled”—may be more welcoming, not least because they indicate that the faculty member has given thought to inequities in their particular environment.
- Grading scales (“exceptional” versus “superior”)
A grading scale may seem to provide helpful clarity about expectations. But one student annotated a typical scale, which presented “A” as “exceptional,” “B” as “superior,” and so on, as “mean and unnecessary,” while another student highlighted “B=superior” to indicate confusion. These reactions suggest that the difference between “exceptional” and “superior” may not be obvious to students. Furthermore, students may be uncomfortable with the value judgements such a scale implies, which might be taken as judgements of them as students and people as opposed to assessments of particular skills demonstrated in the course. The syllabus could reassure students that grades are an assessment of skills demonstrated at a particular moment in time, rather than the instructor’s reflection of students’ academic capabilities and, by extension, identities. A points-based system may avoid adding unnecessary value judgements to grading scales, but instructors could also, again, spell out in more detail what they mean by “exceptional.”
Crafting an Inclusive Syllabus
Our time reviewing syllabi with first-generation students revealed that when it comes to promoting inclusivity, it is essential that instructors craft syllabi with direct language and with context in mind. We must first ask: Who is the document for and how will students engage with it? If a syllabus will be read by students on their own, you may want to include a lot of context, or offer a quiz to ensure students have understood course policies. If you go over the syllabus in class, that context might be offered verbally. Some instructors like to keep a more streamlined syllabus but include a glossary or additional “FAQ” section. What these approaches share is a commitment to connecting the dots, which welcomes all students into a community of learning.
Cataldi E. F., Bennett C. T., Chen X. (2018). First-generation students: College access, persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes (NCES 2018–421). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 11, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf.
About the authors
Brenna Gomez is the Director of Career Integration in the Career Development Center, where she runs the Career Champions professional development program for faculty and instructors. She also teaches technical and creative writing in the School of Writing, Literature, and Film.
Caitlin McVay is the Beaver Connect Coordinator for the Educational Opportunities Program and is the primary contact for the First! Committee at OSU.
Rebecca Olson is Associate Professor of English at Oregon State University, where she teaches early modern literature and culture. She is a member of the Boston University chapter of Tri-Alpha, the national honor society for first-generation college students.
Leave a Reply