THE ELECTRONIC SYLLABUS AS A PEDAGOGICAL OBJECT: AN INTEGRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59787/2413-5488-2026-55-3-49-59Кілт сөздер:
electronic syllabus; integrative literature review; learning management system; constructive alignment; learner-centred pedagogy; higher education; KazakhstanАңдатпа
Every course delivered through a learning management system (LMS) opens with an electronic syllabus. Although what we mean by electronic syllabus is rarely examined on its own terms. This integrative literature review attempts to group research papers on electronic syllabus that have developed largely in isolation: 1) research on the syllabus as a pedagogical document, 2) research on learning management systems and technology integration, and 3) the literature on the digital transformation of Kazakhstani higher education. The synthesis of the reviewed literature groups the evidence into five pedagogical clusters: alignment of outcomes, activities and assessment; transparency of expectations; learner-centred framing and tone; structure, navigation and multimodality; and governance, standardisation and analytics. From these clusters the article proposes a three-layer model of the electronic syllabus, comprising design, communication and use. Astana IT University serves as an illustrative setting but not a site of field research. This article concludes with a research agenda built around document analysis of LMS-hosted syllabi and studies of their use.
Әдебиеттер тізімі
Abdigapbarova, U., Sadirbekova, D., Nishanbayeva, S., & Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2025). The impact of digital hybrid education model on teachers' engagement and academic performance in the context of Kazakhstan. Scientific Reports, 15, 17865. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02875-2
Abiltayeva, A., Zhumagulova, K., Satayev, M., Yechshzhanov, T., Maimatayeva, A., & Balta, N. (2025). Teacher competencies and digital integration into teaching practices: Perceptions from pre-service biology teachers in Kazakhstan. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1628034. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1628034
Akram, H., Yingxiu, Y., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Alkhalifah, A. (2021). Technology integration in higher education during COVID-19: An assessment of online teaching competencies through the technological pedagogical content knowledge model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 736522. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736522
An, Y., Yu, J. H., & James, S. (2025). Investigating the higher education institutions' guidelines and policies regarding the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, research, and administration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cullen, R., & Harris, M. (2009). Assessing learner-centredness through course syllabi. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956018
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dzhanegizova, A. (2024). Digital transformation of higher education in Kazakhstan: Challenges and solutions. Economic Annals-XXI, 209(5–6), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V209-05
Eslami, M., Denaro, K., Collins, P., Sumarsono, J. M., Dennin, M., & Sato, B. K. (2024). How syllabi relate to outcomes in higher education: A study of syllabi learner-centeredness and grade inequities in STEM. PLoS ONE, 19(4), e0301331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301331
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Gauthier, G., Banner, J., & Winer, L. R. (2025). What is the syllabus for? Revealing tensions through a scoping review of syllabus uses. International Journal for Academic Development, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2465363
Gonscherowski, P., & Rott, B. (2025). A systematic review of the literature on TPACK instruments used with pre-service teachers from 2017 to 2023 focused on selecting digital resources. Journal of Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-025-00379-6
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Grunert O'Brien, J., Millis, B. J., & Cohen, M. W. (2008). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Harnish, R. J., & Bridges, K. R. (2011). Effect of syllabus tone: Students' perceptions of instructor and course. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9152-4
Judson, H. (2025). “But I didn't use ChatGPT!”: Democratic course design and generative artificial intelligence in higher education landscape. Teaching Sociology, 53(3), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X251342530
Khodabandelou, R., Yousef, A. M. F., & Elhaj, A. (2025). Affordances and core features of successful digital courses design in higher education. Open Praxis, 17(3), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.3.890
Kholid, M. N., Hendriyanto, A., Sahara, S., Muhaimin, L. H., Juandi, D., Sujadi, I., Kuncoro, K. S., & Adnan, M. (2023). A systematic literature review of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in mathematics education: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2269047. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2269047
Kurakbayeva, A., & Xembayeva, S. (2025). Enhancing professional abilities of university students through digital educational interventions: A study in Kazakhstani universities. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1478622. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1478622
Mandulak, K. C. (2024). Implementing transparency in learning and teaching in higher ed in speech science coursework: A tutorial. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 9(6), 1836–1852. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_PERSP-24-00046
Mazhit, Z., Amanzhol, M., Zhumagaliyeva, G., & Smagulova, M. (2023). Effectiveness of blended learning in higher education: Case of Astana IT University. Bulletin of the Karaganda University Pedagogy Series, 111(3), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.31489/2023Ped3/180-185
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Narbaev, T., Amirbekova, D., & Bakdaulet, A. (2025). A decade of transformation in higher education and science in Kazakhstan: A literature and scientometric review of national projects and research trends. Publications, 13(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13030035
Nilson, L. B. (2007). The graphic syllabus and the outcomes map: Communicating your course. Jossey-Bass.
Nurtayeva, D., Kredina, A., Kireyeva, A., Satybaldin, A., & Ainakul, N. (2024). The role of digital technologies in higher education institutions: The case of Kazakhstan. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(1), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.45
Palmer, M. S., Bach, D. J., & Streifer, A. C. (2014). Measuring the promise: A learning-focused syllabus rubric. To Improve the Academy, 33(1), 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20004
Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875
Pereira, E., Nsair, S., Radin Pereira, L., & Grant, K. A. (2024). Constructive alignment in a graduate-level project management course: An innovative framework using large language models. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00457-2
Serbati, A., Picasso, F., Doria, B., & Grion, V. (2022). Learning outcomes and constructive alignment in the Mega-Universities syllabi: Which “promises” to students? Form@re – Open Journal per la Formazione in Rete, 22(2), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.36253/form-13022
Slattery, J. M., & Carlson, J. F. (2005). Preparing an effective syllabus: Current best practices. College Teaching, 53(4), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.4.159-164
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sulaiman, T. T. (2024). A systematic review on factors influencing learning management system usage in Arab gulf countries. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 2503–2521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11936-w
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2022). An overview of the common elements of learning management system policies in higher education institutions. TechTrends, 66(5), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00752-7
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Winkelmes, M.-A. (2013). Transparency in teaching: Faculty share data and improve students' learning. Liberal Education, 99(2), 48–55.
Winkelmes, M.-A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students' success. Peer Review, 18(1–2), 31–36.
Zhanarstanova, M., Alimzhanov, E., Dossymkhan, Y., & Kaldybekova, A. (2024). The role of learning analytics in assessing the effectiveness of blended education: A case study of Astana IT University. In 2024 IEEE 4th International Conference on Smart Information Systems and Technologies (SIST) (pp. 447–454). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIST61555.2024.10629415
Zhukabayeva, T., Baumuratova, D., Zholshiyeva, L., Karabay, A., & Abdrakhmanov, K. (2025). Digital transformation in higher education: Toward a national model of digital university in Kazakhstan through global and local comparison. Sustainability, 17(24), 11132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411132
Gauthier, G., Banner, J., & Winer, L. (2026). What is the syllabus for? Revealing tensions through a scoping review of syllabus uses. International Journal for Academic Development, 31(3), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2465363
Fischer C, McPartlan P, Orona GA, Yu R, Xu D, Warschauer M. Salient syllabi: Examining design characteristics of science online courses in higher education. PLoS One. 2022 Nov 3;17(11):e0276839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276839. PMID: 36327299; PMCID: PMC9632807.
Жүктеулер
Жарияланды
Журналдың саны
Бөлім
Лицензия
Авторлық құқық (c) 2026 "Қазақстанның жоғары мектебі" ғылыми-сараптамалық журналы
Бұл жұмыс Creative Commons Attribution-Коммерциялық емес 4.0 халықаралық лицензиясы.
