Each educational program for which academic credit is awarded is designed, reviewed, and approved by the faculty and the administration. The design, review, and evaluation process governs development of program curricula and courses offered in traditional formats as well as those offered off-campus or delivered via distance learning technologies.

Curriculum Development

In order to ensure that curricula are (a) appropriate to higher education; (b) consistent with the University mission; and (c) in compliance with accreditation requirements, the University has instituted policies and procedures regarding development, review, and evaluation of graduate and undergraduate curricula. These policies and procedures also ensure that the University possesses the organization and resources to deliver quality education programs. The procedure is outlined below:

• In preparing the Master Plan/Progress Report each spring semester, faculty review outcomes assessment data and evaluate curricular offerings and programs for revision. Based on analysis of these data, faculty make recommendations for curricula change to department heads.

• Department heads review and approve, if appropriate, faculty recommendations.

• Deans review and approve, if appropriate, department head recommendations.

• College curriculum committees review and approve recommendations.

• University Curriculum Committee reviews and approves revisions and additions to undergraduate courses and programs. Graduate Council reviews and approves revisions and additions to graduate courses and programs.

• Recommendations of the University Curriculum Committee and the Graduate Council are submitted to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, who chairs the Academic Advisory Council.

• The Academic Advisory Council reviews and approves graduate and undergraduate curricula before revisions, additions, or deletions are instituted.

The review and evaluation of undergraduate and graduate curricula are outlined in University policy entitled “Evaluation and Review of Curricular Offerings.” This policy is also published in the Faculty/Staff Handbook. Regardless of the method of delivery, all courses are governed by the same development and evaluation processes.

Prior to offering new degree programs, the institution must submit a Letter of Intent to the University of Louisiana System. If approved by the System, the Letter of Intent is forwarded to the Board of Regents for approval. (Board of Regents Academic Affairs Policy 2.04)

The Louisiana Board of Regents then reviews these proposals in accordance with the Louisiana Board of Regents Academic Affairs Policy 2.05. Guidelines for submission of proposals for new programs clearly articulate the necessity of Board approval for development of new programs and elimination or revision of existing programs:

A new program or elimination or revision of an existing program cannot be publicized or implemented prior to approval by the Board of Regents. A new program is defined as a new major which leads to a certificate or a degree at a level or in a field not heretofore offered by the institution. A new program may involve the addition of courses to an existing degree program or it may consist entirely of existing courses packaged in a manner which constitutes a new major. Institutions should discuss planned curricular revisions with the Academic Affairs’ staff to determine the appropriate guidelines and procedures to use in requesting Board of Regents approval. (Guidelines for the Proposal of a New Academic Program)

Program Coordinators

Undergraduate programs which lead to both associate and bachelor’s degrees are coordinated by academically qualified faculty members as are graduate programs leading to Master’s and Specialist’s degrees. In departments where students may select one or more concentrations, qualified Program Coordinators have been selected by individual department heads and deans to ensure the integrity of the programs. The table of Program Coordinators provided as supporting documentation identifies Program Coordinators for each undergraduate and graduate degree and concentrations. Credentials for these coordinators can be accessed through links provided in the table.

The duties of Program Coordinators are summarized in the University Faculty/Staff Handbook:

Undergraduate and graduate academic program coordinators are responsible for program development as well as coordinating the program review and evaluation and identifying appropriate external reviewers. (Faculty/Staff Handbook,Section 324)

Review and Evaluation of Academic Programs and Learning Outcomes

Program coordinators who are responsible for evaluating programs and learning outcomes continually assess curricula and student performance. In preparing the annual master plan/progress report each spring, program coordinators and other teaching faculty review student performance data in light of student learning outcomes.

The program planning and evaluation process was significantly refined in Spring 2005 when the Office of Institutional Effectiveness instituted performance-based outcomes for all academic and support units as a component of the annual master plan/progress report.

In order to ensure that faculty and administration understood the concept of assessment and continuous improvement as it relates to student learning and service delivery the IE Office provided training workshops for faculty, administrators, and staff. Faculty members were trained in developing student learning outcomes and relevant assessment tools.

The principles of assessment and continuous improvement have been incorporated into courses and programs across the University. Following the training workshops, faculty members were instructed to include outcomes and assessments in their syllabi so that courses could be shaped by them and so that students might be apprised of the performance indicators and the process by which their performances were assessed. The Faculty/Staff Handbook iterates the syllabus requirement with regard to inclusion of student learning outcomes. Faculty are responsible for determining appropriate content of courses which they teach, the outcomes they hope to achieve, and the tools by which student performance is assessed. Faculty are also expected to review student performance each semester so that measured outcomes may be a factor in course development and evaluation:

Course Objectives/Learner Outcomes and Assessment. This section [in the syllabus] indicates to students what they can expect to know and/or be able to do as a result of successfully completing the course requirements. Outcomes are written in terms of the knowledge or skills students will attain rather than material covered in the course. Methods for the assessment and/or evaluation of the completion of learner outcomes are included. Outcomes, where appropriate, are correlated with the program outcomes as described in the program progress report. (F/S Handbook, Section 313.7)

The 2005 Master Plans/Progress Reports submitted by academic units reflect in their plans for continuous improvement the strategies each has devised to improve student performance. Plans from the departments of Chemistry, Nursing, and English and Foreign Language are listed below as Supporting Documents to demonstrate this process.

Development of Course Syllabi

Preparation of syllabi for courses also offers another opportunity for review of courses and programs each semester. As faculty members prepare syllabi, select texts, and determine methods for assessment of student performance, they reassess content and student learning outcomes. Faculty are required to prepare and submit syllabi to department heads by the tenth day of class each semester. University policy mandates the following content for all undergraduate and graduate syllabi:

Course syllabi should include course objectives, and student learning outcomes that indicate to students what they can expect to know and/or be able to do as a result of successfully completing the course requirements. Outcomes should be written in terms of the knowledge or skills students will attain rather than material covered in the course. Methods for the assessment and/or evaluation of the completion of learner outcomes should be included. Outcomes, where appropriate, should be correlated with the program outcomes as described in the Master Plan/Progress report. (Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section 313.7)

As the University evolves into a more informed community with regards to assessments, faculty are more mindful of the importance of collecting, aggregating, and evaluating data to determine the success of individual programs.

The McNeese Assessment Team

To ensure consistency and thoroughness in the annual review of academic units, University-wide evaluation of Master Plans/Progress Reports was implemented in March of 2005. The President appointed the McNeese Assessment Team (MAT) to assist academic units in understanding the following general concepts of assessment:

• Strategies for identifying and creating assessment tools appropriate to student learning outcomes;

• Strategies for analyzing data to facilitate planning for continuous improvement.

The MAT evaluates Master Plans/Progress Reports that have been submitted cyclically. Team members and staff from the IE Office meet with individuals who request assistance in preparing the annual master plan/progress report, or whose documents do not receive an acceptable score on the evaluation rubric. A schedule has been developed to ensure that every academic and support unit master plan/progress report will be evaluated at least once every three years.

Midpoint Assessment of Academic Progress

Another tool the University uses to evaluate student performance in general knowledge and skills is the midpoint assessment examination. The Collegiate Assessment of Academic Progress (CAAP) is an examination required of all students enrolled in four-year degree programs. The CAAP, or other designated exam, is administered to students who have earned

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) requires that a member institution periodically measure knowledge/skill gained by its students. One of the measures that McNeese uses for this purpose is the Midpoint Assessment of Academic Progress (MAAP). The purposes of MAAP testing at McNeese State University are:

• to measure educational development of students in core academic areas after the completion of the general education curriculum;

• to determine the readiness of students for beginning junior-level course work;

• to identify weaknesses and strengths of the general education curriculum at McNeese State University for use in decision making regarding the general education core; and

• to provide students soon after the mid-point of their college career with concrete information on which to base their decisions regarding careers and educational goals. Prior to graduation, all seniors are required to demonstrate competency in their major fields by completing a Capstone Experience Course in their major fields. (2006-07 University Catalog, 59)

The Council for General Education Assessment reviews data periodically to determine how effectively general education goals established by the state of Louisiana and the University are being met.

Delivery of Instruction and Student Evaluation of Instruction

Evaluation of instruction is one of several tools used to determine whether or not education goals are met. All teaching faculty are evaluated during fall and spring semesters through Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI). Student evaluation of instruction (SEI) and grade distributions for courses taught during the evaluation period are documents used to determine levels of performance. During the annual review, department heads and deans discuss teaching performance. Recommendations for change or improvement are made as appropriate. The representative list below demonstrates some of the ways in which academic units evaluate adjunct and tenure-track faculty performance and the general effectiveness of programs and courses:

• Annual Performance Review of tenure-track faculty;

• Semester-by-semester evaluation of adjunct faculty and graduate student teaching assistants;

• Syllabi preparation and review.

Supervision of Graduate Teaching Assistants

To ensure that students enrolled in courses taught by graduate teaching assistants receive instruction that is both appropriate and academically rigorous and that program goals are met, the University has established a policy regarding supervision of teaching assistants:

The department head shall designate full time faculty members to coordinate and supervise the graduate assistant's work. Teaching graduate assistants must meet SACS requirements. Supervising faculty shall meet with the teaching assistant for a minimum of five meetings throughout the semester. Graduate teaching assistants should consult the Visiting Instructor Supplement (Section 700) for detailed information (Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section 319.4)

This careful supervision and evaluation of graduate teaching assistants assures departments that program and learning outcomes are uniformly delivered across courses at the undergraduate level.

Student Opinion Survey – Satisfaction with Instruction and Course Content

Another tool used by unit and program heads to gain insight into student opinion regarding delivery of content is the Student Opinion Survey (SOS). Collected by the Office of Institutional Research, these data suggest that by comparison to students surveyed nationally with regard to satisfaction with course content and instruction in a major field, McNeese students express satisfaction that is generally equal to or exceeds that of college students nationwide. The table below reflects results from this opinion survey with regard to indicators specific to content and instruction:

Questions on Student Opinion Survey Regarding Satisfaction with Instruction and Content in Major Field

Development and Evaluation of Distance-learning and Web-based Courses

As the needs for new methods of delivery of instruction grow, the University has developed carefully articulated policies and procedures which ensure that courses offered in non-traditional formats adhered to the goals set for programs and courses and are sufficiently academically rigorous and comparable to courses offered in the traditional format. The excerpt below from the University “Internet or Web-based Course Policy,” published in the Faculty/Staff Handbook and on the University webpage, illustrates the procedure by which the University assures the academic integrity of such deliveries and that faculty are kept abreast of the newest innovations in instructional technology:

Faculty wishing to deliver course instruction using the Internet must adhere to the most recent Web-based Course Policy. Check the McNeese web page for the most recent policy. The Coordinator of Distance Learning will provide materials and training relevant to Internet or web-based courses. [. . . ]

Any faculty member using the Internet for course delivery must have participated in appropriate training for such delivery methods. At a minimum, the faculty member must demonstrate competency in appropriate technical methods and an understanding of pedagogy as related to web-based instruction. It is suggested that accepted models of web-based instruction be viewed prior to course development. The Coordinator of Distance Learning will provide information on training and available models and resources for Internet instruction.

Statewide Redesign of Teacher Preparation Programs

In 2001, the Louisiana Board of Regents mandated redesign of all teacher preparation programs within the state. The development and redesign process requires significant collaboration between faculty representing the colleges of education, liberal arts, and science at the University, along with representatives from local school districts and other affected stakeholders. Once redesigned programs have been approved by external evaluation teams, the University of Louisiana System, the Louisiana Board of Regents and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, courses and programs must still be submitted for approval through the appropriate college curriculum committee and either the university curriculum committee or the Graduate Council prior to final approval by the Academic Advisory Council. The process for approval of redesign is articulated in the Regents’ Teacher Education Initiatives document:

Colleges of education and colleges of arts and sciences and humanities at all public and private universities in Louisiana have worked with their local school districts to redesign their teacher preparation programs. Campuses have been provided guidelines to assist in the development of the redesigned programs. In addition, all redesigned programs have been evaluated by national consultants. Campuses have been required to address stipulations identified by the evaluators in order for programs to be approved by the Board of Regents and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. (Teacher Education Initiative)

Regular review and revision of course content and program goals by program coordinators and other teaching faculty also occur as a result of periodic accreditation visits by professional agencies. For example, all professional education programs underwent extension review and revision as a result of a National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) re-accreditation process in 2004 and the business programs underwent a similar process by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in 2005. A list of professional agencies and learned societies that have accredited, certified, or approved McNeese academic programs is published in the University Catalog.

Supporting Evidence

General Education Goals 2005-06

Faculty Accomplishments

Department of Chemistry Master Plan

College of Nursing Master Plan

Department of English and Foreign Language Master Plan

Student Evaluation of Instruction - Instructor Sample Results