1. 2015/2016 Annual Fall Curriculum Information Meeting

2. Agenda
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?

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

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:
Course Change:
Course Deletion:
Program Modification:
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
These are only suggestions!!!
New Course:
In 2010, the NSF and AAAS published "Vision and change in undergraduate Biology education." Based on the recommendations in this document and program assessment data, the Biology Department has undertaken a revision of all of our undergraduate programs, including a revision of the core curriculum required of all Biology majors and minors. This course will be one of the foundational courses in the new core curriculum.
Course Change:
The FMD major and minor is being revised so that it is current with industry trends and to better prepare our students with up-to-date knowledge and the skills necessary for successful career placement. As part of the program revision, the credits for this course have been reduced from 4 to 3. The credits were also reduced in order to lower summer tuition as students typically do not have financial aid available to them in the summer and struggle to pay for this course. The title and bulletin description were modified to reflect the new name of the program. The title abbreviation was changed to reflect the new course title.
Course Deletion:
This course has not been taught in over fifteen years. The deletion is part of our program review process and accounts for changes in the field.
Program Modification:
The revision of our major and minor transforms our program so that it meets current disciplinary standards, meets the demands of the modern professional workforce, and reflects students’ intellectual as well as career interests. These changes were prompted by the recommendations that emerged from the Department’s External Review in as well as the Academic Prioritization Report prepared by the Department in 2011.
First, the proposed changes will update our Department’s programs so that they reflect current intellectual emphases and approaches within the disciplines of political science and public administration. Specifically, one of the recommendations of the External Reviewer, Dr. John Ishiyama (currently editor of the discipline’s flagship journal, the American Political Science Review), was that the Department should develop courses and programs that go “beyond geographic coverage, to topical or thematic coverage, which is essentially where the discipline is moving nationally.” The thematic certificates that are being proposed to complement the revised major and minor arethe main way in which the Department is addressing this concern. Students will be advised to include one (or more) of the new certificates into their programs of study. With respect to multiple certificates, we have explicitly devised synergies between various pairs of certificates. For example, a student pursuing a certificate in Global Governance and Advocacy may choose to complement it with the certificate in either International Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Administration or Political Advocacy and Elections. Since the Curricular Authority Document allows six credit hours earned in one certificate to count towards another, a degree-seeking student may earn a second certificate for nine additional credits. Thus, a student majoring in Political Science, for example, may earn the major and two certificates for a total of 41 credit hours. This goal of revising the major and minor as well as creating thematic certificates was included in PSC’s 2011 Academic Prioritization Report.
Second, the revised major and minor and new certificates respond to the changing needs of the professional workforce. A survey by the Association of American Colleges and Universities showed that 72% of employers surveyed believed that colleges and universities should place more emphasis on global issues and developments and their implications for the future. This emphasis is also consistent with CMU’s Mission to “prepare students for productive careers, meaningful lives, and responsible citizenship in a global society.” Recent assessments of higher education also stress the importance of reinvigorating efforts to promote both civic and political engagement on campus. Meanwhile, research in higher education clearly demonstrates that experiential learning provides a number of benefits to students, including higher levels of academic achievement and retention. Thus, the knowledge and skills gained in these programs will prepare CMU graduates to serve local, national and global communities in a variety of callings, including domestic and international governmental and non-governmental organizations both in the U.S. and abroad.
Finally, in recent surveys and interviews with our students, we have become more aware of their interests and concerns about the course offerings and descriptions. For example, we are replacing the concentrations in International Relations/Comparative Politics, General Political Science and Public and Administration as a result of a series of interviews and surveys of our students. In addition, research on today’s college students indicates that community service requirements in high school have cultivated a strong preference for active learning. In short, this generation of students wants to integrate knowledge gained in the classroom with applied experiences and public service, which all of the certificates enable.

5. CAD Revisions
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.

6. CAD Revisions – Cont. 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.

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 must explain 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 must provide 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 must include 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. Develop follow 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 ( 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: Please do 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:
Education Portal:
O*Net Home:

15. Questions