2015/2016 Annual Fall Curriculum Information Meeting

1. 2015/2016 Annual Fall Curriculum Information Meeting

2. Announcements • Electronic Curriculum System - Updates & Best Practices (Handout) • Summary of CAD Revisions • New Programs • Master Course Syllabi (MCS) – Considerations (Handout) • Enhancing Curriculum Committees • Handling Committee Minutes • Lessons Learned • Resources • Questions? Agenda

3. Welcome! • New Registrar, Keith Malkowski • Recognition of 2015-16 Senate Review Committee Chairs (SRC) & College Curriculum Committee Chairs (CCC) • Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Accreditation Visit – Spring 2016 • Other Curriculum Considerations Announcements Office of Academic Effectiveness Claudia Douglass, Vice Provost Warriner 312, 774-3632, dougl1cb@cmich.edu

4. Electronic Curriculum System Updates & Best Practices • Rationale for Course Proposals (not to be confused with MCS course level rationale): be very descriptive with the rationale that led to the proposal. • Good Examples: • New Course: https://apps.cmich.edu/CurricularForms/GreenForm/New.aspx?id=2151 • Course Change: https://apps.cmich.edu/CurricularForms/GreenForm/Change.aspx?id=2269 • Course Deletion: https://apps.cmich.edu/CurricularForms/GreenForm/Delete.aspx?id=2019 • Program Modification: https://apps.cmich.edu/CurricularForms/PinkForm/Change.aspx?id=318 • Managing Agendas and the Electronic Curriculum System: It is vitally important to ensure your committee members know how to access the electronic proposals and also use the print feature to make track changes. • Curriculum Committee Approvals

5. Introduction to the electronic curriculum process was added. • Curriculum Review Bodies – Updated Descriptions • Added Additional Curriculum Review Bodies • CMU Board of Trustees (BOT) • Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan (PCSUM) • Higher Learning Commission (HLC) • Added a summary of approval actions taken by curriculum committees • Section II: MCS was removed out of course proposals and put in a separate section specifically for the MCS • Hyperlinks were added to the curriculum proposal forms • MCS section was improved to provide clarity (i.e. course level rationale) • Removed Bibliography from MCS. • Section was added to the program section specifically for certificates. • Concept proposal for Certificates was removed. • PCSUM involvement in new programs is described. CAD Revisions

6. Concept proposal for Certificates was removed. • Stand-alone certificates now require an assessment plan, since these programs are not assessed anywhere else. • PCSUM involvement in new programs is described. • Flow Charts have been updated. • Definitions and abbreviations have been updated to provide clarity. • A Quick Reference Guide for approval levels was added. • Each of the Senate Review Committee charges were updated. • Student Learning Outcomes policy was updated to provide an assessment cycle format that aligns with the program review. Outlines stand-alone certificates needing assessment plans and assessment reports required to be posted to department websites. CAD Revisions – Cont.

7. New Program (Blue Form) • Understanding curricular approval process and timelines to avoid delays! • After Department approval, you should start to work on the assessment plan. Assessment plan needs to be approved by the Assessment Council before SRC approval. • Assessment Coordinator is the liaison between the Assessment Council and the programs, works directly with the initiator. • Bulletin Editor is a major resource. It is a critical to ensure the bulletin is accurate!! • Average time to APC is about 5.5 weeks. APC = PROGRAM EVALUATION. Designators: If a new designator is needed, it should be requested either at the same meeting of the APC when the new program is discussed or following approval by the APC. Follow the procedures outlined in subsection E to secure a new designator. • Courses must be approved by College and sent to SRC • simultaneously or prior to program going to SRC. • SRC = COURSE EVALUATION

8. New Program (Blue Form) New Program Approval Time Line (If there are NO edits or returns): Department – 1 to 2 weeks College – 3 to 4 weeks Dean Approval/Bulletin Editor – 5 to 6 weeks APC/Provost – 7 to 8 weeks Assessment Council – 9 to 10 weeks Academic Senate Executive Committee – 10 – 11 weeks Academic Senate Committee – 12 to 13 weeks Board of Trustees – 16 to 17 weeks Presidents Council – 22 to 24 weeks Expect at least 6 months for new programs to be published with NO delays. *This does not take breaks or holidays into account.

9. New Programs PCSUM Review President’s Council Review (PCSUM): a voting process is executed by the participating colleges and universities in the state. Questions that may be asked of your new program or other programs at state institutions. • What are the faculty response(s) to the new program(s)? Please select one of the following and provide a brief explanation Expression of Support Have Reservations Need for Discussion • How does the new program(s) compare to CMU’s program(s)? • Will the new program(s) draw students from our program(s)? • Explain how the proposed program does or does not sufficiently address the needs outlined in the proposal? • Are resources such as funds to support the program; program oversight; career counseling; advising; budget; faculty resources; space and equipment adequate? • Are quality indicators such as faculty skill and experience adequate for the program and is the curriculum designed to serve the needs of the program?

10. Master Course Syllabus (MCS) • Bulletin Description Handout: How to write a good bulletin description. • Course Level Rationale: Rationale mustexplain reasoning for course level and why it is not at a lower/higher level. Rationale should begin to provide support for the SLOs by stating whether the course is an introduction to a content area, reinforcing content (assumes past knowledge), or an emphasis on content (expects upper level rigor). • Deleting Requisites: If these items are removed from an MCS and/or bulletin description, the Initiator mustprovide clear rationale explaining the removal of the requisites. • Consistency: The MCS must match the items that are identical on the proposal form (i.e. requisites). • Adding Requisites: Adding any of these items may impact time to graduation. Good practice may include addressing such issues in the rationale. • Recommended Requirements: If any courses or requirements are recommended, the Initiator mustinclude the word “Recommended” in the bulletin description. • Support of SLOs: ensure the evaluations appropriately support the learning objectives. For instance, if the course is a 400-level course and is focused on integration of theories and concepts, one may expect to see an evaluation such as a project where the student is analyzing, synthesizing, and constructing arguments based on theories and concepts. Contact an Assessment Coordinator for assistance writing SLOs.

11. Enhancing Curriculum Committees • Engage Members: Designate committee members to do the following: • Evaluate impact on time to graduation • Review grammatical issues that may lead to approved with edits versus returns • Address possible advising issues • Evaluate the affects on other departments and programs • Evaluate course outcomes to ensure they are measureable and appropriate for the course level • Evaluate course sequencing for new programs • Evaluate changes in number of credit hours • Evaluate affects of program modifications • Determine if courses are duplicated • Ensure information in the attached documents match the electronic forms!!! • Capitalize on Member’s Strengths: Example, some members may have been involved in program review. Allow them to evaluate new programs overall while other members may be better suited to evaluate course modifications because of experience redesigning courses. • Follow Up Strategies (Out of Sight Out of Mind): Curriculum proposals are often forgotten when there is not a good strategy for following up. Developfollow up strategies and COMMUNICATE to other committees. • Participate in Curriculum Discussions (i.e. Curriculum & Coffee)

12. Handling of Curriculum Minutes Accuracy of Minutes: To ensure accuracy of minutes, it is important to verify correct dates and information in SAP. Sometimes the information may change in SAP depending on the lag time on the routing of the proposal. Consistency: Ensure the information on the Green Form reflects exactly what is on the MCS. In addition, be sure the Green Form reflects the information stated in the minutes (hours, lab hours, etc). Frequency of Submitting Minutes: Minutes should be submitted to the Bulletin Editor and Academic Senate Office not later than 2 weeks after the meeting is held. FROM and TO: are still needed in minutes for courses but should be copied from the electronic proposal and pasted in the minutes. Please continue to use the minutes template (http://academicsenate.cmich.edu/curricular_minutes.htm) on the Academic Senate website to ensure consistency sing there will be multiple reviews of the minutes. Call the Academic Senate office or the Office of Curriculum and Assessment if you have any questions regarding minutes.

13. Lessons Learned Example of issues that prolong the approval process • Forgetting to put certain phrases, such as online/hybrid, CR/NC, etc., in course descriptions. • Information is out of order in a course description.  • Missing prerequisites in the course description box on the green form. • Approved with Edits: Pleasedo not use any other means to suggest approved with edits other than the comments box within the electronic proposal. If you need to use other means, then strongly consider returning the proposal since significant changes are required. • Departments as Initiators: If the Department is the initiator, you must have a systematic way of informing faculty of proposal statuses. • Caution – Sending Back Proposals: do not send a proposal back to the initiator until the entire committee has reviewed the proposal. This does not save time, since additional revisions may be posed by the committee. Please follow up, it is the responsibility of the committee returning the proposal to follow up with the initiator to ensure revisions are made timely. • Electronic Approval of Minutes: a well-designed electronic approval process can save a significant amount of time during the next meeting if the minutes are discussed electronically.

14. Resources • Curriculum Website:CentralLink>Office of the Provost>Academic Affairs>Curriculum and Assessment>Curriculum. • Academic Senate Website:CentralLink>Academic Senate. • Electronic Curricular Forms Link:CentralLink>Academic Senate>Academic Senate – Internal>Curricular Forms. • Bulletins: CentralLink>Office of the Provost>Academic Affairs>Bulletins. • Assessment Plan Development: CentralLink>Office of the Provost>Academic Affairs>Curriculum and Assessment>Assessment>College Assessment Coordinators. • Online Faculty Information System (OFIS): CentralLink>Office of the Provost>Academic Affairs>OFIS • Education Index for Graduate Schools: http://graduate-school.phds.org/education-index/robotics-courses-in-michigan • Education Portal: http://education-portal.com/ • O*Net Home: http://www.onetonline.org/

15. Questions