Stephen Logan

HIST 5093
Review of V. Lewis F2F Syllabus
25 April 2023

In her syllabus V. provides a clear and concise roadmap for students to follow in the
course. Modules, assignment dates, and grading breakdown are clearly presented in a familiar
way that students can comprehend. The assignment details for the quizzes and discussion board
responses articulate the requirements in a way that students can achieve success simply based
upon reading the syllabus. While it’s not necessary to have an extensive amount of information
on the syllabus about all assignments, I felt that the research project could have had a few more
details to help students understand the assignment in advance. The only part of the syllabus in
which I struggled with the organization was the “Course Format and Communication” section. It
feels like there is a lot of diverse information crowded into that space under the same heading.
The course objectives contain a wide range of levels of thinking, and they are extensive
and well-written. I do believe that with so many objectives, it may be hard for students to
internalize those objectives. Some of the objectives seem like they could be sub-objectives for a
greater, more wide-ranging course objective. Rather than state students will “apply critical
thinking skills” or “employ different methods that historians use,” it might be helpful to define
what those are specifically and identify them as objectives the students will work towards. I
appreciated the clear definition of an “identification summary,” as I am not familiar with that
terminology. I wonder if those summaries are the primary vehicle for assessing some of the
higher order thinking objectives outlined in the syllabus; I imagine the discussion board
responses would be as well.
The course syllabus displays a high level of professionalism and presents an authoritative
tone (perhaps too much so, in this reviewer’s opinion). It feels similar to many course syllabi I
have received over the years, which brings a level of comfortability and accessibility for me
personally. Outside of the research project, it doesn’t feel like there are a lot of differentiated
activities for students to complete that might diverge from the common notions of a “history
course,” and I wonder if there is space to implement something more non-traditional, if desired.
Overall, I believe this syllabus meets the requirements for an undergraduate survey level course;
modifications would serve to enhance an already well organized and thought-out course!