The following syllabus is for a section of Introduction to Philosophy at Harper College, a two-year college in the suburbs of Chicago. The design of the syllabus (particularly its assessment structure) primarily arose from my frustrations with grading. And so, in this syllabus showcase, I will focus less on content and more on the ways in which I structured the assessments and grading. In the syllabus that follows, I have eliminated much of the specific content that my institution requires (office hours information, student service information, the academic honesty policy, etc.). While the ways these elements of a syllabus are worded is important, that is not my focus here.
In general, I have found that traditional ways of grading often create transactional and oppositional relationships between students and teachers, and I wanted to experiment with a new grading format that I hoped would better reflect student learning and help me to foster more trusting, collaborative, and respectful relationships with students. To this end, I designed my assessments around Linda Nilson’s Specifications Grading (2015) with some modifications. Specifications grading is a system in which individual assignments are graded on a pass/fail basis, with overall grades determined by the number and kinds of assignments successfully completed.
At my institution, we have specific learning outcomes at which our courses are supposed to aim. In my department, there are ten outcomes for Introduction to Philosophy, which I grouped together and simplified into five broader outcomes that I felt were aligned with the outcomes my department has chosen in a way that was also tailored to my individual goals and strengths as a teacher. Those five overarching goals were for students to:
- Understand different kinds of questions (e.g. epistemic, normative, ontological, etc.)
- Apply philosophical concepts and skills to their daily lives
- Improve in their ability to understand difficult philosophical texts
- Learn to respond philosophically to the ideas of others
- Communicate effectively in writing
These outcomes are not listed on the syllabus itself so as not to confuse students, given that the department determined outcomes must be listed. But this simplified set of outcomes is what structured my own thinking about the course.
Once I settled on these goals as the main outcomes for the course, I broke each goal down into four levels of competency, with corresponding assessments. For example, for differentiating between kinds of questions, level 1 was defined as the ability to describe categories of questions, level 2 was the ability to put questions into categories, level 3 was the ability to generate specific kinds of questions, and level 4 was the ability to challenge or provide a deeper analysis of the categories themselves. The required assessments for the course involved demonstrating level 3 competency in each area, and if a student completed all required assessments satisfactorily (daily reading checks, three exams, an ongoing philosophical journal, contributions to class discussions, and a final public philosophy project), they would receive a ‘B’ in the class. In order to get an ‘A’ students needed to satisfactorily complete a number of additional assignments that demonstrated level 4 competencies. This structure gave students greater control over their grade and also discouraged students from turning in work just to pass.
The exams for the class were structured around the goals and levels of competencies. Each section of the exams focused on a different skill at a different level and if students received 80% or higher on a given section, they were given credit for demonstrating that particular competency. Students had the opportunity to submit exam corrections in which they were required to give a new answer and to reflect on why they thought their previous answers were marked incorrect.
Discussion contributions were assessed through the use of discussion cards, an idea that I learned about from Ann Cahill (Elon University). Throughout the semester, the students and I worked together to identify the different kinds of “moves” that can be made in academic conversations (e.g. providing evidence for a claim, asking a clarification question, disagreeing and giving a reason, etc.). Students were asked to make and identify at least three moves in each unit (either in oral discussion or in writing).
The final project for the course was a public philosophy project in which students were asked to take what they had learned throughout the semester, combine it with their own particular interests and skills, and bring philosophy to the public in some way. Students were given broad latitude to develop their projects as they wanted and were encouraged to be creative. Students made paintings, poetry, podcast episodes, videos, dance, and more.
Overall, I think the course was largely successful in achieving the planned outcomes and I found grading to be much easier, which allowed me to focus on giving quality feedback. In their reflections on the grading structure, students largely expressed that they liked it. Several said that they felt as though they had more control over their grade, and some said that the system was less stressful because they were graded on competency rather than getting or losing credit for individual questions on exams. One student said that they found that they worked harder but experienced less stress. The only negative feedback I received on the grading structure was that it was confusing at first, but those comments were almost always qualified with a generally positive assessment of the structure.
The next time I teach this course, I plan to change up some of the content to include more women and to make the content less Euro-centric. I also plan to make some tweaks to the grading system (e.g. I plan to switch from discussion cards to periodic discussion analyses) but on the whole, I believe that the structure worked well and I recommend experimenting with specifications grading to others who find themselves dissatisfied with traditional grading systems.
Here is the syllabus.
PHI 105 – 003 Introduction to Philosophy
Spring 2019 Course Syllabus
Course Outcomes: Upon successful completion of the course, students should be able to:
Demonstrate an awareness of philosophical issues in at least the following areas: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
Identify and explain the main arguments, ideas, or questions of three thinkers, including at least one from outside the western philosophical canon.
Identify and explain how philosophical concepts inform discussions of real-world issues.
Apply distinct philosophical perspectives to a discussion of real-world issues.
Analyze and defend judgments about philosophical claims in the face of competing judgments.
Evaluate competing philosophical perspectives on human problems and action.
Demonstrate an understanding of the weaknesses of one’s own view and the strengths of a view with which one disagrees.
Demonstrate the use of three primary texts in service of the above outcomes.
Write a total of at least ten pages (of approximately 300 words each) of college level writing in support in the service of the above outcomes.
Communicate philosophical ideas and issues orally.
Required Materials
Readings (in the order needed):
Title: Symposium
Author: Plato
Translators: Alexander Nehamas & Paul Woodruff
ISBN: 0-87220-076-0
Publisher: Hackett Publishing Co.
Publish Date/Edition: 1989
Title: What Love Is: and What it Could Be
Author: Carrie Jenkins
ISBN: 978-0-46509-885-9
Publisher: Basic Books
Publish Date/Edition: 2017
Title: Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy
Author: René Descartes
Translator: Donald A. Cress
ISBN: 0-87220-420-0
Publisher: Hackett Publishing Co.
Publish Date/Edition: 1998/4th Edition
Assessment Overview
Grading Categories
Attendance/Daily Reading Checks
Max score = 12 points (4/unit)
Journal
Max score = 9 points (3/unit)
Discussion Cards/Class Engagement
Max score = 9 points (3/unit)
3 Exams
Max score = 24 points (6/exam)
Optional Writing Assignments
Max score = 12 points (4/unit)
Final Project
Max score = 12 points
Total points = 72
Grading:
In this course, assignments will be evaluated on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis according to specific criteria provided on Blackboard. Partial credit will not be given. For each grading category, you will receive a score based on the number and kind of assignments that you have satisfactorily completed.
To determine your grade for the class, divide the number of points received by 18. To receive a ‘D’ or higher in the class, the points you receive must come from at least 3 different assignment categories.
Final Grade
A: 3.5 – 4.0 (63 – 72 points)
B: 2.5 – 3.49 (45 – 62 points)
C: 1.5 – 2.49 (27 – 44 points)
D: 0.5 – 1.49 (9 – 26 points)
F: 0 – 0.59 (0 – 8 points)
Category Descriptions
Detailed descriptions of the guidelines and grading criteria for all assignments are available on Blackboard.
Daily Reading Checks/Attendance: Most days, at the beginning of class, you will be required to complete a short reading check. Because many of the readings will be difficult, I do not expect you to have a full understanding of the texts, only to have made a solid effort to understand. Reading guides will be available for each reading. For each unit, you will receive between 0-4 points, based on both your attendance and the number of reading checks you successfully complete.
Journal Reflections: Throughout the semester, you will maintain a journal with reflections on what you have learned and the connections that you are making to the material outside of class. You will submit your journals to be graded at the end of each unit and will be assigned between 0-3 points.
Discussion Cards/Class Engagement: For this class to be as good as it can be, it is important for everyone’s perspective to be heard. For each unit, you will create discussion cards that you will then “play” as you participate in class discussions. For each unit, you will receive between 0-3 points.
Exams: At the end of each unit, there will be an exam covering the content and skills from that unit. Each exam will have two sections, each worth between 0 – 3 points for a total of 6 possible points. For each exam, if you receive fewer than 3 points on a given section, you will have the opportunity to correct the questions you missed. More details about the process of correcting your exams will be provided on Blackboard.
Additional Writing Assignments (OPTIONAL): Throughout the semester, students have an opportunity to demonstrate a high level of mastery of philosophical skills by submitting additional writing assignments. These assignments include: 1. A Question Analysis 2. A Textual Analysis 3. A Discussion Analysis and 4. A Journal Analysis. These assignments are optional, but students will need to successfully complete at least 6 (out of 12) of these assignments to have the chance to earn an ‘A’ in the course.
Final Project: In lieu of a cumulative final exam, students will complete a final project and writing assignment (approximately 5 pages) in which they will engage in a creative public philosophy project. This project will be due at the scheduled exam time for this course. More details about this project can be found on Blackboard.
PHI 105-003 Introduction to Philosophy
Spring 2019 Course Schedule
UNIT I: Philosophy as the Love of Wisdom
Week 1
Mon. 1/14: Introductions
- Read Plato, Symposium. pp. 1-8 (in class)
Wed. 1/16: Speeches of Phaedrus, Pausanias
- Read Plato, Symposium. pp. 9-19
- Introductory Survey Due
Week 2
Mon. 1/21: MLK Day
- No class
Wed. 1/23: Speeches of Erixymachus, Aristophanes, and Agathon
- Read Plato, Symposium. pp. 20-44
Week 3
Mon. 1/28: Diotima; Allegory of the Cave
- Read Plato, Symposium. pp. 45-60
- Read the “Allegory of the Cave” (Blackboard)
Wed. 1/30: Alcibiades
- Read Plato, Symposium. pp. 61-77
Week 4
Mon. 2/4: Introduction to Jenkins; Love as biological
- Read Jenkins, What Love Is.Prologue, Introduction, Ch. 1; pp. ix-35
Wed. 2/6: Love as Social Construct
- Read Jenkins, What Love Is. Ch. 2; pp. 37-54
Week 5
Mon. 2/11: Love’s dual nature; Changing what love is
- Read Jenkins, What Love Is. 4 and Ch. 6; pp. 79-104; 123-146.
Wed. 2/13: Review
- Unit 1 Journal due
- Optional Discussion Analysis and Journal Analysis due
UNIT II Philosophy as the Search for Truth
Week 6
Mon. 2/18: Exam
- Exam 1
Wed. 2/20: Descartes’s Method
- Read Descartes, René. Discourse on Method, Parts 1-2
Week 7
Mon. 2/25: Descartes’s Method
- Read Descartes, René. Discourse on Method, Part 3
Wed. 2/27: Descartes’s Meditations; Methodological Skepticism
- Read Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 1
- Optional Unit 1 Exam Correction/Question Analysis and Textual Analysis due Friday 2/29
Week 8
Mon. 3/4: Descartes’s Meditations (cont.)
- Read Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 2
Wed. 3/6: Descartes’s Meditations (cont.)
- Read Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 4
Week 9
Mon. 3/11: Epistemic virtues
- Read Medina, José. The Epistemology of Resistance. pp. 27-40
Wed. 3/13: Epistemic virtues
- Read Medina, José The Epistemology of Resistance. 40-55
Week 10
Mon. 3/18: Epistemic responsibility
- Read Medina, José. The Epistemology of Resistance. pp. 133-150
Wed. 3/20: Review
- Unit 2 Journal due
- Optional Discussion Analysis and Journal Analysis due
Spring Break
Mon. 3/25: SPRING BREAK
Wed. 3/27: SPRING BREAK
UNIT III: Philosophy as the Pursuit of Justice
Week 11
Mon. 4/1: Exam
- Exam 2
Wed. 4/3: Introduction to Social Contract Theory; Hobbes
- Read Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Part 1, Ch. XIII (Blackboard)
Week 12
Mon. 4/8: Locke
- Read Locke, John. The Second Treatise on Government, Chapters 1-3 (Blackboard)
Wed. 4/10: Locke
- Read Locke, John. The Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 9 (Blackboard)
- Optional Unit 2 Exam Correction/Question Analysis and Textual Analysis due Friday 4/12
Week 13
Mon. 4/15: Rawls
- Read Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice, Selections (Blackboard)
Wed. 4/17: Rawls
- Read Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice, Selections (Blackboard)
Week 14
Mon. 4/22: Mills
- Read Mills, Charles. The Racial Contract. Ch. 1, pp. 9-19 (Blackboard)
Wed. 4/24: Mills
- Read Mills, Charles. The Racial Contract. Ch. 2, pp. 41-53 (Blackboard)
Week 15
Mon. 4/29: Review
Wed. 5/1: Exam
- Exam 3
Week 16
Mon. 5/6: Public Philosophy Project Workshop
- Optional Discussion Analysis and Journal Analysis due
- Unit 3 Journal due
Wed. 5/8: Public Philosophy Project Workshop
- Optional Unit 3 Exam Correction/Question Analysis and Textual Analysis due Friday, 5/10
Finals Week
5/13-5/17: Final project presentations
- See Final Exam schedule on Harper’s website for due date/time
The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please email sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org to nominate yourself or a colleague.
Rebecca Scott
Rebecca Scott is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Harper College and tabletop game enthusiast. Her research interests lie at the intersections of philosophy and pedagogy.
