A REVISED Proposal: Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum & Re-designed Campus Processes

1. presented by Rob Till, Chair UAC Bruce Fox, Chair LSC & member of UAC Craig Bain, Chair UCC NiranjanVenkatraman, member UGC & UAC A REVISED Proposal: Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum & Re-designed Campus Processes

2. 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.

3. The work group recommended re-designing the curricular-focused committee structuresand 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…

4. Strengths of the proposal: • Formal adoption of expectations for curriculum design and assessment • Combinationof 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 NAU’s regional accreditor (Higher Learning Commission)

5. Areas of concern: • Implementationissues (i.e., “too much, too fast”) • Workload for chairs and faculty • Workload and trainingof committee members to quickly adapt and learn a new process • Continuous Course Improvement Documentsseen as “busywork” • Perceived duplicationof reporting requirements for programs that have discipline-specific accreditation • Perceived limitations on curricular design (i.e., standardization of curricula)

6. REVISED PROPOSAL Expectationsfor Degree Program Curriculum will frame the development, approval, and review of curricula. Re-structuring of curricular-focused committees Details

7. 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

8. Re-structured Campus Curriculum/AssessmentCommittees Oversees review of curricular proposals

9. 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

10. We request that the Faculty Senate: A. Approve the Expectations for Degree Program Curriculumthat 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 & assessmentcommittees/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 faculty-driven curricular expectations to help ensure implementation

11. QUESTIONS? What issues do you have or have you heard that we have not yet addressed?

13. 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 Review’s Action Plan.

14. 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 NAU’s academic program review process

15. 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 NAU’s regional accreditor (Higher Learning Commission) that all accredited institutions engage in practices of assessment of student learning for continual improvement.