Tone Affects Access
The tone of a syllabus affects classroom accessibility in important ways. For example, universal instructional design encourages instructors to demonstrate a tone of approachability and empathy in the syllabus (Orr and Hammig). Students with disabilities must feel comfortable approaching a professor to request accommodations, so reframing tone isn’t about popularity–it’s about access.
Scholars have proposed changes to syllabus tone such as warm language, autonomy-promoting language, and cooperative language, all of which are covered in more depth below. The point isn’t to ignore unwanted behaviors, but to consider how we frame them. Not all of these tools will work for all instructors, though, so in the next section, we discuss the limitations of the research and how instructor positionality might affect decisions about tone. In the final section, we also move beyond tone and provide other strategies for encouraging students to reach out.
One important limitation to note from the onset comes from researchers Amy Howton, Mandy McGre, Liyuan Liu, Lauren Staples, and Herman Ray, who studied the effects of syllabus tone on 1,000 students. They concluded: “It does not matter how learner-centered the syllabus is if the students do not read it.” In many studies students are required to read the document, but in theirs, students were simply members of the course. When they tracked students’ behavior, few read the syllabus. So, an engaging tone must be combined with other strategies (many of which are outlined on this site) so that it actually reaches students.
Instructor Positionality Affects Tone
There’s no single way to write a syllabus. This site doesn’t promote a one-size-fits-all approach to syllabus language or encourage you to adopt a voice that feels inauthentic. That could create problems for students and instructors. For example, if the tone of the syllabus does not reflect the actual atmosphere of the classroom, students might be resistant and view the syllabus as misleading.
Like all language, syllabus language is personal and political. As instructors, we must consider how our social identities (that is, our positionality) shape the classroom alongside our values. For example, different instructors might strive to create conditions for autonomy but use different methods because we don’t all come into the classroom with the same level of automatic authority. Professors Chavella Pittman and Thomas Tobin talk about teacher authority as a “force field.” The teacher position should protect instructors by ensuring respect from students; however, this force field tends to protect those with dominant social identities (2022).
Instructors from marginalized communities often have their authority questioned due to systemic biases, which shows up when students directly challenge authority (Alberts et al.; Wright) and assign lower evaluation scores than they do for professors from dominant groups (American Sociological Society; Heffernan).
Therefore, discrimination can create a double bind for instructors from marginalized communities: sharing authority with students can foster equity and engagement, but will it undermine classroom stability for instructors whose authority is already challenged? And will institutions support instructors if they stray from more traditional methods? These are complex questions.
The research on syllabus tone is limited in helping us answer these questions because it rarely addresses instructor identity. In studies, students typically evaluate a syllabus with no instructor assigned, meaning that students are assessing an anonymous version of who they perceive an instructor to be. Their survey responses, then, do not take into account how implicit bias and overt discrimination impact professors from marginalized groups. One study includes gender as a dimension (Waggoner & Veloso), but as of yet, we identified none that address race or other identities.
Below, we review literature on syllabus tone for instructors to consider through the lens of your own experiences in the classroom. We’d love to learn more from readers if you have identified approaches that work for you! (Email AccessibleSyllabus@gmail.com)
Warm Syllabus Tone
Some scholarship suggests students respond well to warm syllabus rhetoric. Richard Harnish and Robert Bridges conducted an experiment in which 172 undergraduate students read syllabi containing either warm or cold language and rated professors. Unsurprisingly, students rated the “cold” professor more unfriendly and less approachable than the “warm” professor. But interestingly, students also rated the “cold” course more difficult even though the requirements were the same. These findings were replicated in a study of 124 master’s students (Sheely-Moore et al.). The chart below shows examples of the language differences in Harnish and Bridges’ study.
| Sample Phrases from Cold Syllabus | Sample Phrases from Warm Syllabus |
| “Come prepared to actively participate in this course. This is the best way to engage you in learning” | “I hope you actively participate in this course . . . because I have found it is the best way to engage you in learning.” |
| “traumatic events . . . are no excuse for not contacting me within 24 h” | “traumatic events . . . are unwelcome and because I understand how difficult these times are, if you contact me within 24 h of the event and provide documentation, I will be happy to give you a make-up exam.” |
Additional research on warm-toned syllabi shows other potential positive effects. Researchers Regan Gurung and Noelle Galardi surveyed 257 students and found that students were more likely to say they would reach out to an instructor if the syllabus was warm-toned (the same was found by Perrine, Lisle, and Tucker). Additionally, they rated the anonymous instructor more highly if they used a warm-toned syllabus than a cold one.
Syllabus researchers Jeanne Slattery and Janet Carlson describe an interesting unpublished lecture given by V.M. Littlefield. Littlefield reported that participants in her study “remembered the information on warm syllabi better than that on less student-friendly syllabi.” More research is needed to determine whether a warmer tone might encourage students to remember information better.
Notably, warm tone does not have an effect on how students perceive the competence of an anonymous instructor (Gurung and Galardi; Nusbaum et al.; Waggoner & Veloso) or their organizational skill, knowledge, professionalism, and experience (Nusbaum et al.). In Waggoner & Veloso’s study, this remained true for male, female, and gender-unspecified instructors. The study did not account for intersectional differences in how students treat women instructors or study student’s perception of a nonbinary and/or gender expansive instructor.
Autonomy-Promoting Language
Additional research outlines potential benefits from an autonomy-promoting syllabus. This kind of syllabus language prioritizes choice, minimizes pressure, and justifies assignments. In contrast, a controlling syllabus prioritizes compliance, increases pressure, and employs threats. The table below shows how researchers put these principles into language (Herrera et al.).
| Autonomy-Supportive Syllabus | Controlling Syllabus |
| I have chosen a textbook that I find particularly well-written for our subject. We will cover eleven chapters that students have found most interesting in the past. I encourage you to read each chapter before class (…). | This course will cover eleven chapters from the required textbook, to be reviewed in order throughout the semester. The professor expects to cover at least one chapter per week, and students should complete the readings BEFORE each class. |
| I will hold weekly office hours on Tuesdays from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. and Fridays from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. (…) My door is open to you if you need it! | By appointment only. |
| Emails will be answered within two business days. I reserve the right to refrain from responding to emails that use disrespectful language. | Emails will only be responded to during weekly office hours. No tutoring will be offered via email. |
| I understand that we all occasionally face unexpected situations. In case of absence from the midterm or final exam, please provide me with any legitimate documentation to justify it. | Absences from evaluations without a valid reason will not be tolerated. If you miss an evaluation without explanation, a penalty will be imposed. Reasons such as travel, employment, or errors in reading the exam schedule will not be accepted. |
University of Ottawa researchers Jully Paola Merchán Tamayo, Meredith Rocchi, Jenepher Lennox Terrion, and Simon Beaudry showed that in contrast to a controlling syllabus, students had more positive feelings toward the course and instructor of an autonomy-supporting syllabus. U.S.-based researchers Adena Young-Jones, Chantal Levesque, Sophie Fursa, and Jason McCain showed that this kind of syllabus made students believe that an instructor would listen to them and increased the likelihood that students would enroll in the course. An international research team, including Dora Herrera (Lima, Peru), Aranza Lira-Delcore (Madrid, Spain), and Benjamín Lira Luttges (Philadelphia, USA) also reported favorable results. Students rated the course more engaging and fairer.
In Anne-Marie Womack’s classes, she prioritizes invitations over commands to foster student choice and autonomy. These invitation-based statements are most effective when students have meaningful options in how they can participate, submit work, and earn points.
| Commands | Invitations |
| “You must complete makeup work to receive credit.”“You are allowed to…”“I only accept…”
“Late work receives a 40% reduction.” |
“Feel free to complete makeup work to earn credit.”“You are welcome to…”“I encourage you to…”
“Late work is eligible for 60% of original points.” |
Invitations signal respect and trust–but only when real choice is possible. It would not be appropriate to make a statement like, “I welcome you to complete assignments on time or earn a zero.” The tonal mismatch could create resistance in students.
Logical Consequences
In cases where flexibility isn’t feasible in a course, instructors can reduce the risk of sounding overly punitive by framing policies as logical consequences rather than retributive punishments. In this approach, instructors explain explicitly how guidelines are designed to support learning and collaboration, not just enforce compliance.
Much of the research on logical consequences has been conducted on children rather than college students, but it offers some insight into how learners might respond to authority figures setting boundaries. Research with 8- to 13-year-olds suggests that logical consequences—particularly when explained with a clear rationale—are perceived as more acceptable and just as effective as mild punishments (Mageau et al., 2018). A global study of 12- to 20- year olds similarly affirms the value of “pairing constraints with reasoning” (Robichaud et al., 2024). These scholars found that when parents used logical consequences rather than more controlling approaches, adolescents were more likely to view those interventions as acceptable and to follow the rules for internal reasons.
When instructors explain the reasoning behind classroom policies, they help students understand their purpose. This approach fosters transparency, trust, and a shared sense that rules exist to support learning and equity—not to impose control.
When designing consequences, consider your learning goals. Point deductions are often less effective than offering meaningful ways for students to complete the learning. For example, if a student misses a class, they could share a reflection on the day’s readings or create a slide deck to help other students review the content. If a student misses peer review and classmates are unavailable because they are managing their own workload, the student could meet with a peer tutor to review their own work and practice giving feedback by critiquing a sample paper from a past student.
Womack uses logical consequences to take into account her needs as well as students. When students submit major assignments particularly late, they can earn full points, but not comments. In the syllabus she explains that she cannot effectively engage with weeks-old work after grading has moved on. This consequence acknowledges workload realities and aims to be transparent about the time constraints shared by students and instructors.
We would be very interested to learn other types of consequences that instructors use outside of deducting points. (Email AccessibleSyllabus@gmail.com)
Cooperative Rhetoric for Discussing Disability
Syllabi typically include an official disability statement, and instructors should consider critically how disability is framed. Unfortunately, common institutional language often treats access for disabled students as an administrative burden rather than a shared responsibility. One alternative framework comes from the University of Arkansas’s Disability Resource Center. In 2014, their resource “Reframing Disability” stressed cooperative over paternalistic language. (It is no longer available on their site but is housed at ExploreAccess.com.) This kind of language reflects a broader shift in disability studies to emphasize student agency and to view access as a collective “relational” practice, as scholar Tanya Titchkosky describes.
| Paternalistic language | Cooperative Language |
| assist
allowable receive support services The services you need. |
collaborate
usable, equitable, sustainable create an inclusive learning environment Creative solutions. Together. |
When we revisited Arkansas’ website in 2025, they stressed the social model of disability in more depth. This approach contrasts with the more common medical model, which views disability as an individual problem that needs to be cured or fixed. In the social model, disability is understood as a result of societal barriers, not bodily deficits. The key distinctions between the two models are outlined below, based on Carol J. Gill’s work.
| Medical Model | Social Model |
| Disability is a deficiency or abnormality | Disability is a difference |
| Being disabled is negative | Being disabled, in itself, is neutral |
| Disability resides in the individual | Disability derives from interaction between individual and society |
| The remedy for disability-related problems is cure or normalization of the individual | The remedy for disability-related problems is a change in the interaction between the individual and society |
| The agent of remedy is the professional | The agent of remedy is the individual, an advocate, or anyone who affects the arrangements between the individual and society |
Applying these ideas to the syllabus, it’s important that references to disability reflect an empowering and theoretically-grounded view of disability identity. The policies page on this site includes examples of disability statements that enact these principles.
Beyond Tone
While this page focuses on syllabus tone, tone is not the only way to accomplish inclusive goals. Other pages on this site explore how accessible images, thoughtful document design, and inclusive policies contribute to equity. These design choices work in tandem with language to shape how students experience the syllabus.
Some of the research we have already discussed emphasizes strategies outside of tonal changes that can reach inclusive goals, such as encouraging students to reach out. In Gurung and Galardi’s study, for example, a “Reach Out” statement raised the likelihood that students would reach out if they were to experience difficulties. That was true even if the syllabus was written with cold language. Moreover, the combination of warm language and a reachout statement did not produce a greater combined benefit. The statement read:
University students encounter setbacks from time to time. If you encounter difficulties and need assistance, it’s important to reach out. Consider discussing the situation with an instructor or academic advisor. Learn about resources that assist with wellness and academic success at Oregon State University. If you are in immediate crisis, please contact the Crisis Text Line or call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
Another study found that if instructors include a welcome statement in the syllabus, students said they were more likely to seek support in office hours and to ask questions in class (LaPiene et al. 2011). Amber Dickinson created more encouraging classroom emails to achieve greater student outreach. She sent out an introductory welcome email, wished students good luck throughout the semester, and sent additional notes of encouragement. These are some of the many strategies to encourage students to reach out.
Inclusive tone matters, but it’s one part of a broader ecosystem of design, engagement, and access.