A REVISED Proposal: Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum
A REVISED Proposal: Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum & Re-designed Campus Processes presented by Rob Till, Chair UAC Bruce Fox, Chair LSC & member of UAC Craig Bain, Chair UCC Niranjan Venkatraman, member UGC & UAC PROCESS Curriculum & Assessment Work Group, in summer 2013, recognized compelling need to integrate curriculum, assessment, and program review processes on campus.
Foundations of proposal: A faculty committee would collectively set the expectations for curricula (not content) of degree programs. Expectations would guide: Development of curriculum Decision making regarding curriculum proposals, and Review of degree programs during Academic Program Review. The work group recommended re-designing the curricular-focused committee structures and reporting processes to support the expectations.
Proposal was presented to campus groups for feedback, including: ACCA, FSExC, PALC, ACADA, UAC, Faculty Senate, LSC, UCC, ACC, and UGC. Feedback identified strengths and areas of concern Proposal was revised based on the feedback Strengths of the proposal:
Formal adoption of expectations for curriculum design and assessment Combination of curriculum & assessment processes Incorporation of a review of curriculum design and assessment of student learning into the Academic Program Review process Assurance we have institutional practices that satisfy requirements of NAUs regional accreditor (Higher Learning Commission) Areas of concern: Implementation issues (i.e., too much, too fast)
Workload for chairs and faculty Workload and training of committee members to quickly adapt and learn a new process Continuous Course Improvement Documents seen as busywork Perceived duplication of reporting requirements for programs that have discipline-specific accreditation
Perceived limitations on curricular design (i.e., standardization of curricula) REVISED PROPOSAL Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum will frame the development, approval, and review of curricula. Re-structuring of curricularfocused committees Details Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum
Mission and Purpose of a Degree Program * Degree Program Student Learning Outcomes * Curriculum Design with a Curriculum Map Strategic Course Learning Design which supports Degree Program Student Learning Outcomes Systematic Assessment of Degree Program
Student Learning Outcomes * Use of Assessment Findings for Continual Improvemt. * * Already required as part of current policies Re-structured Campus Curriculum/Assessment Committees Oversees review of curricular proposals Tentative Timeline for Implementation Spring 2014
ACCA would develop implementation plan for re-structuring campus curriculum and assessment committees/processes. ACCA would obtain feedback on plan from the UAC, UCC, UGC, and LSC, then report to the Fac Senate Exec Comm. Support faculty & degree programs to achieve expectations AY 2014-2015 Continue to support fac. & deg. programs to achieve expect. Begin to integrate processes for curriculum and assessment Develop plan for re-structured committees for AY15-16
AY 2015-2016 Continue to support fac. & deg. programs to achieve expect. Implement new committee structure We request that the Faculty Senate: A. Approve the Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum that will frame the review of degree programs as part of the Academic Program Review process the development and approval of curricula B. Approve the re-structuring of curriculum & assessment committees/processes to ensure that these aid degree programs in achieving Expectations C. Charge academic leaders with Identifying
and providing support to degree programs to prepare for their Academic Program Reviews & to implement their action plans following review process Monitoring extent to which degree programs achieve facultydriven curricular expectations to help ensure implementation QUESTIONS? What issues do you have or have you heard that we have not yet addressed? How re-structured committees/processes work? University Curriculum and Assessment Committee will collectively set expectations for degree programs.
Chairs/directors will collectively engage faculty to align degree programs with expectations. College Curriculum and Assessment Committees will apply expectations in decision-making regarding curriculum proposals. Academic leaders and faculty will utilize the expectations in developing strategic plans for improvement of student learning as part of the Academic Program Reviews Action Plan. Response to Feedback: A Revised Proposal
Removing the Continuous Course Improvement Document and reducing workload of University Curriculum and Assessment Committee members Clarifying use of Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum as a framework for the development of curriculum and review of degree programs during academic program review but not as a limitation on curricular content Extending implementation timeline Clarifying that annual Assessment Reporting requirements will remain the same
Accredited programs will follow their accreditors existing accreditation processes Non-accredited degree programs will continue to participate in NAUs academic program review process Highlighting that 4 of 6 expectations in the proposal are already required by programs. The remaining two expectations (Curriculum Design with a Curriculum Map; Strategic Course Learning Design) ensure quality curriculum and meaningful assessment Combining the curriculum and assessment committees at
the college and university level Continuing to maintain that the Faculty Senate charge academic leaders with identifying and providing support to degree programs to prepare for their Academic Program Reviews, as well as providing support for implementing Action Plans following Academic Program Review process Continuing to address the requirement of NAUs regional accreditor (Higher Learning Commission) that all accredited institutions engage in practices of assessment of student learning for continual improvement.
This presentation is protected under copyright law. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this presentation, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to maximum extent of the law.
The Primary Campaign Does media have more or less of an effect in the primary campaign? How do resource-poor, less known candidates benefit or suffer from the primary process? 24 hour/ 365 day campaign What was life like before the...
Less tolerance from stakeholders for self-review threats in context of NAS. Revision of internal firm policies and procedures with respect to providing NAS to audit clients. Now is the time for a full review of NAS, especially permissibility issues.
Relationships based on physical properties (as opposed to performance measures) may be easier to discern and justify: for power cabling of the same cross-section and power rating, linear feet would be a good adjustment attribute; for a surface of identical...
The tools, products, or services we need most (from NGS or others) are: Whereas NADCON, VERTCON and CORPSCON converts data easily from NAD27 and NGVD29 to NAD83 and NAVD88, we will need new transformation tools for the new datums
Poster presented at the Texas Physical Therapy Association Annual Conference in Fort. Worth, TX. Bachman T, Williams S, Delgado V, Moran G. (2016) Patient Satisfaction in a Student Run Physical Therapy Clinic. Poster presentation presented at the Texas Physical Therapy...
What is engineering and technology education? Teach courses related to . engineering and technology . at the middle and high school level. Write and implement lesson plans related to engineering and technology standards and objectives.
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!