Excerpts from the Charge to the Committee to Review the CAD

1
Excerpts from the Charge to the Committee to
Review the CAD

• The committee is charged with a thorough review
  of the CAD with the aim of making recommendations
  to the Academic Senate that would increase the
  efficiency of curricular change while insuring
  the highest quality curriculum.
• Specific areas to review include
• Structure, function, and charge of the various
  curriculum committees
• Length of time to get curricular material through
  the process
• General Education committees and their charges,
  and procedures for review of courses and program
• Approval procedures for addendum for distance
  learning
• Publication vs. Action items clarity and
  purpose
• Clarity of the criteria and forms utilized in
  curricular review
• Master Course Syllabus what needs to be
  included, and who needs to review
• Use of explanatory notes for students to assist
  in communicating the appropriateness of the
  course
• Clean-up editorial changes

2
CAD Review Committee (Convened November 2007)

• Jennifer Cochran (ProEd) Member PECC
• Mary Ann Crawford (Eng) Faculty Senate Elected
• Kathy Koch (EHS) Exec Committee Appointed
• David Kelley (ET) Faculty Senate
  Elected
• Orlando Perez (PSC) Past Chair UCC
• John Lopes (PA Prog) Member Graduate Council
• George Ronan (PSY) Past Chair Gen. Ed.
  Subcommittee
• Denise Webster (Acad Affr) Provost Appointed

3
(No Transcript)
4
Course of Action

• Solicited Input From CMU Community
• Solicited Input From all Curricular Bodies
• Developed Work Groups
• Process Team Quality Team
• Discussed and Integrated Findings
• Revised CAD
• Dissemination/Solicit Input
• (Formally Began 10/08)

5
Comparison of Structure

6
Shift in Focus
7
Routing and Approval of Curricular Items

• Some curricular changes are vetted by College
  level curriculum committees
• Minutes are forwarded to relevant curricular
  bodies, the Academic Senate, and posted online
  through the Academic Senate Web site for entire
  CMU community to review (new function)
• Other curricular changes are vetted by the four
  main Academic Senate appointed curriculum
  committees
• Minutes are forwarded to the Academic Senate and
  posted online for review (currently done)
• New program proposals and major curricular
  changes are vetted by the Academic Senate
• Minutes are posted online for review (currently
  done)

8
Course Related Proposals Vetted by College
Curriculum Committees

• Modification of Existing Courses
• Course Deletion
• Change in Designator (if designator already
  exists)
• Change in Title
• Change in Number (not associated with Course
  Level Adjustment)
• Change in Credit Hours
• Change in Distribution of Hours
• Change in Credit/No credit status
• Change in Cross Reference
• Change in Bulletin Description
• Change in Course Outline
• Change in Evaluation
• Change in Delivery Format
• Change in Bibliography

9
Program Related Proposals Vetted by College
Curriculum Committees

• Modification of Existing Program
• Change in list of courses on concentrations
• Change in list of courses on electives
• Change in list of courses on graduate options
• Change in list of courses on major
• Change in list of courses on minor
• Any change in total credits hours requires a full
  review by the appropriate Academic Senate
  Appointed curriculum review body.

10
Curriculum Proposals Vetted by Academic Senate
Appointed Curriculum Committees

• Modification of Existing Courses
• Change in Course Level
• Change in Prerequisites, Pre/Co-requisites or
  Co-requisites
• Change in Course Objectives
• Seven year MCS Review (prior 5 year review)
• Proposals For A New Course
• Modifications of an Existing Program
• Change in degree requirements
• Changes in number of credit hours on a
  concentration, graduate option, major, or minor
• Change in titles of degrees, majors, minors or
  graduate option/concentration/certificate

11
Curriculum Proposals Vetted by the Academic Senate

• Modification of an Existing Course
• Creation or deletion of a designator
• Modification of an Existing Program
• Creation or deletion of a designator
• Deletion of concentration, graduate option,
  major, or minor
• Deletion of a degree
• Change in General Education program University
  Program, Competency Requirements
• New Program Proposals

12
Change in Academic Senate Appointed Curriculum
Bodies

• Four Academic Senate Appointed Curricular Bodies
  are Committees that Review and Finalize Above
  Described Curricular Changes
• General Education Committee
• Graduate Program Committee
• Professional Education Curriculum Committee
• Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
• Suggested changes
• Charges for each committee were reviewed.
  Intentional changes have occurred, may need to be
  fine tuned.
• Combine General Education Council and General
  Education Subcommittee into General Education
  Committee. GE Committee would not be a
  subcommittee of UCC.
• Change Name of Graduate Council to Graduate
  Program Committee
• Professional Education Curriculum Committee would
  not be a subcommittee of UCC or GC. New program
  proposals must proceed to the UCC or GC before
  action at the Academic Senate.
• Members of curricular committees can serve two
  successive terms.

13
Change in Forms

• Master Course Syllabus
• Streamlined
• Integrated format for delivery
• Course proposals
• Adjusted routing to match proposed changes
• Program Modification proposals
• Adjusted routing to match proposed changes
• Changed format for identifying number of credits
• Added statement regarding impact on students

14
Change in New Program Proposals

• Explicit program evaluation criteria
• - APC and curricular review bodies using same
  criteria
• Documents follow evaluation criteria
• - Identical forms for planning, curricular
  approval, and state review
• Review process streamlined
• - Doctoral programs Two, versus current three,
  step process

15
Guidelines for Implementation

• What responsibilities are involved in
  implementing the recommendations in this
  proposal, and who must carry them out?
• Changes to the CAD will need to be disseminated
  throughout the campus community. We recommend
  the Office of the Academic Senate and the Office
  of Curriculum and Assessment be tasked with
  oversight of dissemination.
• What costs are associated with the implementation
  of these recommendations, and who must pay them?
• The expectation is that dissemination will incur
  some short-term opportunity costs (e.g., faculty
  committee time), but the expectation is that
  the resulting efficiency and effectiveness will
  result in significant savings.

16
Guidelines for Implementation
What is the schedule for the implementation of
these recommendations? Dissemination began during
the Fall 2008 Semester. Discussion and training
is expected to continue through the Summer of
2009. The new CAD will take full effect starting
with the Fall 2009 semester. Proposals in
process held harmless.   What procedure should
be adopted for the responsible individuals/offices
listed above to report to the Senate on their
progress in implementing the recommendations? The
Office of the Academic Senate and the Office of
Curriculum and Assessment will keep the Senate
E-Board apprised of progress with dissemination.
A formal report will be submitted to the Academic
Senate before the beginning of the Fall 2010
semester.
17
CMU Curricular Authority Document
Knowledge
Disciplines
Programs
CAD