Section 3.4.12: Educational Programs: All Educational Programs

Judgment of Compliance

Requirement

Narrative

McNeese State University is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.4.12.

The University assigns primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum to University faculty. Periodic review and evaluation of curricular offerings, programs, and student learning outcomes for each program begin at the departmental level as faculty and administrators review outcomes of assessment data and evaluate curricular offerings and programs for revision. The University ensures that curriculum design rests with faculty regardless of method of delivery.

Process for Curriculum Development and Evaluation

Curriculum development and revisions are initiated at the departmental level each spring semester, and in early fall, progress through a college review panel, a university committee for undergraduate programs, the Graduate Council for graduate programs, and to the Academic Advisory Council before being forwarded to the Vice President of Academic Affairs for final approval.

Curricular revisions originate at the faculty level and are often based on program assessment and evaluation data compiled and analyzed for the Master Plan process. Review and evaluation of curricular offerings and programs begin each spring as faculty and administrators review program outcomes assessment data for inclusion in the Master Plan. In some cases, curricula revisions are necessary to comply with accreditation or professional agency criteria. The process is as follows:

• Program coordinator or faculty identify needs and discuss at the departmental level;

• When approved by the department head, the proposals are submitted to the dean for discussion at the college level. This step may include review by a college committee or review with the department head and dean;

• When approved by the dean, the materials are sent to the appropriate university-wide curriculum committee. Undergraduate materials are reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee (UCC). Graduate program materials are reviewed by the Graduate Council;

• When approved by the UCC or the Graduate Council, the materials are presented to the Academic Advisory Council for review;

• Proposals are then approved by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and forwarded to the Registrar for inclusion in the University catalog and electronic registration system.

University Curriculum Committee

The University Curriculum Committee is comprised of a representative from Distance Learning, a faculty representative from each academic college, one representative from the Library, two representatives from General and Basic Studies, two representatives from Faculty Senate, and two representatives from the Student Government Association. This committee reports to the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The primary responsibility of the University Curriculum Committee is to review curriculum changes, including revisions, additions, and deletions. Committee responsibilities are delineated in the Faculty/Staff Handbook:

[The University Curriculum Committee] is [r]esponsible for reviewing proposals for course additions including distance learning, deletions or changes in curricula, and making recommendations to the Academic Advisory Council through the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The University Curriculum Committee is composed of a representative from Distance Learning, a faculty representative from each academic college, and from Library and two representatives from General and Basic Studies, from Faculty Senate, and from SGA. This committee reports to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section 642).

Once curriculum decisions have passed the University Curriculum Committee, they are then approved by the Academic Advisory Council. Its constituency and duties are defined as follows:

Membership on the Council shall consist of the Provost [and] Vice President [of] Academic Affairs (Chairman); Dean, College of Business; Dean, Burton College of Education; Dean, College of Engineering and Technology; Dean, College of Liberal Arts; Dean, College of Nursing; Dean, College of Science; Dean, Graduate School; Director of the Library; Registrar; Director, Media Services; Dean, Enrollment Management; and President of the Faculty Senate. All members have voting privileges. The Academic Advisory Council addresses issues affecting academics (Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section 601).

Issues relating to graduate curricula are addressed by the Graduate Council. The Graduate Council is comprised of a graduate faculty representative from each college, the Graduate School Dean, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs (ex-officio), and a graduate student appointed by the Graduate Council. The Graduate Council is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to graduate curricula offerings and programs. The Faculty/Staff Handbook iterates the purpose of the Graduate Council, one of which is to approve graduate curriculum:

[The Graduate Council is] [r]esponsible for serving as a policy-recommending body and reviewing proposed changes to graduate curricula offerings and programs (Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section 619).

Development of New Programs

Undergraduate and Graduate

Sparked by faculty interest and commitment, proposals for new degree programs are initially discussed with the Vice President of Academic Affairs. During early discussions, questions about the program’s fit in the institution’s mission, the demand and/or need for the program, the resources needed in order to offer the program, the admission requirements, the potential for completers, and other relevant factors are considered.

Letters of Intent for new programs proceed through the departmental committee, college committee, University Curriculum Committee or Graduate Council, and Academic Advisory Council for approval. Once approved at the campus level, the Letter of Intent is submitted to the University of Louisiana System for approval. Once approved [by] ULS[,] it is forwarded to the Board of Regents for review and approval. If approved [by] the Board of Regents, a Degree Program Proposal is submitted within the allotted timeline. Once approved by the Regents[,] the program is included in the University catalog and electronic registration system.

Proposals for new concentrations within existing degree programs do not require board approval. Relevant factors for new concentrations are discussed with the Vice President of Academic Affairs before being submitted to the University Curriculum Committee.

Development of Web-based or Internet Courses

The University encourages all faculty whose course work lends itself to alternative modes of delivery to create such courses. To offer an incentive for creating web-based courses, the University provides a stipend as follows:

Faculty who develop web-based courses to be offered by McNeese are eligible to receive a $1,000 stipend provided all requirements stated in information technology related policies are met. Courses designed for independent study such as directed study, internships, field study, etc. do not qualify for the stipend. (Web-based Course Stipend Policy)

• Faculty using Internet for course delivery must be properly trained and demonstrate competency in use of appropriate technical materials;

• Faculty offering new courses after fall 2005 are required to successfully complete the online course, Introduction to Online Course Design;

• Faculty members must develop proposed course prior to semester course is offered;

• Course is reviewed by the E-Learning Advisory Team for approval or with recommendations for improvement. Any course which does not receive the E-Learning Advisory Team approval may not be taught online;

• All Internet courses are subject to review by the E-Learning Advisory Team;

• A justification for offering the course through the Internet must be included in the request for approval.

Curriculum Review in Preparation of Annual Master Plan/Progress Report

University support and academic units have compiled annual Master Plans/Progress Reports since 1986. The Master Plan/Progress Report format was revised in 2005 asking each unit to examine data based on stated objectives and incorporate curricular and procedural changes as a result of this review. During this annual review, all units – including academic – are asked to review their goals in light of the University mission and core values. Academic units are required to identify, measure, and use appropriate student learning outcomes in developing curricula. The revised format asks units to align their individual goals with the University’s goals. Representative of Master Plans from academic units from across the campus, the excerpt below from the Department of Health and Human Performance Master Plan illustrates the process by which academic units integrate the University mission in significant ways into curriculum development:

Academic Program Mission or Purpose:

The purpose of the Undergraduate Program parallels the purpose of the Health & Human Performance Department, The Burton College of Education, and the University. The major goals of the program include the following:

1. The preparation of workers in the area of health and human performance.

2. The preparation of students for graduate studies in health and human performance.

3. The provision of leadership in community activities.

4. Exposure of students to professional activities.

5. Prepare students for success in physical therapy school.

The program achieves this purpose by providing the following:

1. A course of study leading to the Bachelor of Science degree.

2. The preparation of effective teachers of health and physical education in K-12 schools.

3. Faculty members are actively involved in a variety of community health promotion activities and encourage and involve undergraduate candidates when possible.

4. Involving candidates in professional meetings such as the LAHPERD convention.

5. Involving candidates and faculty in active placement coordination of exercise science concentration students into physical therapy school.

Institutional Mission Reference:

The Program in Health and Human Performance supports the university’s mission of: (1) providing a baccalaureate curriculum distinguished by academic excellence, (2) promoting student success, (3) promoting university-community linkages, (4) cultivating skills necessary for critical thinking and effective expression, (5) gaining an understanding of the multicultural global community, and (6) developing a sense of ethical and civic responsibility along with specific knowledge of their chosen discipline.

Institutional Goals Supported:

SS1 Foster a climate that enhances student learning, focuses on retention, values advising, and enriches the quality of campus life.

SS2 Nurture an environment to support cultural diversity.

AE1 Emphasize excellence in instruction.

AE2 Develop programs that are viable, innovative, and relevant to market needs.

AE3 Infuse a global outlook and ethical standards in course content and curriculum development.

AE4 Uphold the commitment to regional and national program accreditation.

AE5 Encourage undergraduate and graduate research in appropriate disciplines.

FR1 Engage in continuous assessment, evaluation, and improvement.

FR2 Utilize the role of technology to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of campus operations.

FR4 Capitalize on efficient use of resources.

The excerpt below from the Associate Degree in Engineering Technology 2006 Master Plan/Progress Report demonstrates how analysis of student performance data and student surveys result in plans for continuous improvement in development of curricula and in delivery of instruction. This plan is representative of program and unit assessment and evaluation across campus:

Outcome 3:

Understand the fundamental principles of equipment operation so [students] will know not just how equipment is operated but why it is operated that way.

Assessment Methods:

Specific course outcomes are related to the program learning outcome. Student performance on assignments related to a given course outcome in PRTC 204, PRTC 206, PRTC 224, PRTC 226 and PRTC 228 will be used. Feedback surveys from students on how well they feel the course outcomes were met will be used. Graduate surveys on the program outcomes are also done.

Performance Indicators:

• 80% of the relevant course outcomes related to the program learning outcome should be met. These will be evaluated by individual exams, final exams, laboratory or class exercises, and papers or procedures that are written.

• Feedback surveys should score a 4 on a 5-point scale.

• Course outcomes not met indicate areas for improvement.

• Graduate surveys should score at least 4 on a 5-point scale.

Measured Outcomes:

PRTC 206, PRTC 226, and PRTC 228 are all stand alone lab classes. These courses focus on the student learning proper operation of equipment and the ability to troubleshoot problems that arise. The average lab grade for these courses indicates that students are successful with this outcome. PRTC 204 and PRTC 224 are lecture classes that cover fundamental equipment operation and why it operates that way. Analysis of feedback surveys for PRTC 224 shows students feel they have the poorest grasp on reactors, which is the last topic covered. Analysis of PRTC 204 surveys show that explanation of operating conditions (3.8 out of 5) and using pump curves to determine equipment performance (3.9 out of 5) are below the performance standard. Analysis of PRTC 204 student exams showed 81.9 and 87.5, respectively, for each of these components. Predicting how operational conditions will affect equipment performance was below standard on exam scores for both PRTC 204 and PRTC224. Lack of access to labs with computer based training exercises and lack of easy access to equipment due to Hurricane Rita are believed to have affected these results. Graduate surveys were not performed because of a new department head, and the loss of all materials from previous reviews due to [water and mold] damage sustained in department head office where papers were stored.

Class Assessment Score

PRTC 204 Average from exam questions 73.8 Student feedback survey of course outcomes range from 3.8 to 4.4

PRTC 206 Final average 89.9

PRTC 224 Average from exam questions 77.6 Student feedback survey of course outcomes Range from 3.2 to 4.5

PRTC 226 Final average 90.1

PRTC 228 Final average 95.0

Plan for Continuous Improvement:

1. Continue to monitor outcome assessments.

2. Continue to utilize student feedback surveys of specific outcomes to monitor performance.

3. Perform graduate survey each semester as analysis method for meeting outcomes.

4. Review all performance indicators and methods of analysis on an annual basis.

5. Assessment methods and performance scores will be discussed at the fall 2006 department faculty meeting. Any changes to those assessment methods will be reported on the 2007 Master Plan.

6. Develop activities to improve student understanding of why equipment functions as it does for PRTC 204 and PRTC 224.

7. Review with each adjunct instructor the specific outcomes that need to be analyzed for each course they teach.

McNeese Assessment Team

During the Spring 2005 semester, the McNeese Assessment Team (MAT) was formed in order to achieve the following goals: to assist “academic and non-academic units in understanding the concept of assessment and for purposes of reviewing and evaluating unit Master Plans and other assessment methods” (Letter to President from Office of Institutional Effectiveness). Comprised of members of various academic support units (Library, Institutional Research, and Student Affairs) and faculty representatives from each college, the MAT reviews Master Plans/Progress Reports and assists individuals preparing these annual reports when necessary. The in-house review provides insight into the annual review process for individuals preparing Master Plans/Progress Reports that aid them interpreting data and determining such components of the process as “Plans for Continuous Improvement.” The MAT is largely faculty-driven. A description of the MAT duties and responsibilities is posted in the Faculty/Staff Handbook:

McNeese Assessment Team (MAT)

The [r]esponsibility [of this committee] is to assist academic and non-academic units in understanding the concept of assessment, incorporating assessment methodologies into learning outcomes and objectives, and planning for continuous improvement. The McNeese Assessment Team is composed of a representative from Business, from Engineering, from Education, from Liberal Arts, from Science, from Nursing, from Library, from Student Services, and includes the Director of Institutional Research. This team reports to the President. (Section 625)

University Program Review

With the creation of the McNeese Assessment Team, the University implemented in-house program reviews to ensure that both undergraduate and graduate curricula maintain quality, are effective, and deliver appropriate content. Program reviews are conducted by faculty in programs which are not accredited by professional accrediting agencies. Academic program review policy, published in the Faculty/Staff Handbook and on the University homepage is as follows:

Undergraduate Academic Program Review

McNeese State University seeks to maintain the highest academic program quality and ensure each program meets stated objectives and student learning outcomes. Academic program review is conducted to ensure academic excellence and appropriate student achievement and success is maintained for each program offered. Programs accredited by professional accrediting agencies undergo thorough self-evaluation and external review periodically as required by the respective accrediting agency. Programs that are not professionally accredited or for which there is no professional accrediting agency conduct periodic self-evaluation and review according to MSU policy.

The McNeese State University Assessment Team reviews program and unit Master Plans to ensure fulfillment of the University’s mission is ongoing and appropriate student learning outcomes are being achieved, documented, and reported. The annual Master Plan process ensures academic programs document expectations for student learning objectives, achievement of the objectives, and identifies improvements as a result of analyses of program assessment information. A more detailed and comprehensive program self-evaluation and review is conducted periodically (approximately every seven years) according to the timeline established by the MAT.

For professionally accredited programs, the program review conducted during its accreditation processes serves as an appropriate academic program review.

Non-accredited undergraduate programs for which an accrediting agency exists use program accreditation criteria outlined by the accrediting agency for the self-evaluation format. Non-accredited undergraduate programs for which no accrediting agency exists use the MSU Academic Program Self-Evaluation format. A program review requires faculty to develop a formal document (not to exceed 75 pages) and includes persons external to the University (faculty from sister institutions, or other experts in the discipline). Guidelines for the document are indicated in the “Undergraduate Academic Program Self Evaluation” procedure. Non-accredited graduate programs conduct self-evaluation according to the criteria developed by the Graduate Council.

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)

Graduate Academic Program Review

Graduate programs are also reviewed periodically by faculty in programs not reviewed by professional agencies. The Graduate Council adopted the review plan on April 13, 2006. The Graduate Program Standards document demonstrates the process by which graduate programs are periodically evaluated by faculty members.

An illustration of inter-disciplinary faculty participation in curriculum development and improvement occurred during the latest revision of the Master Plan/Progress Report. The Secondary/K-12 Education Programs Advisory Council, which is comprised of two faculty from the Department of Teacher Education and a faculty representative from each department housing a secondary or K-12 level teacher education program, established common program objectives that would apply to all secondary and K-12 programs. Faculty from across the campus meet periodically to determine how effectively students aspiring to receive secondary or all-levels certification are progressing through their respective degree programs and determine whether or not curricula and courses are adequate in meeting student and certification needs. (See minutes from Secondary/K-12 Programs Advisory Council)

Faculty Senate

The Faculty Senate may also make recommendations for curricular review and revision The Senate, comprised of faculty from each college, was created to achieve the following purpose:

320. Faculty Senate

The Faculty Senate was established to provide a means for the general faculty to advise and make recommendations regarding the policies of the University curricula and academics. The Senate's goals are to promote the academic and ancillary affairs of the University, to improve communications throughout the University, and to further the interests of the faculty. The Faculty Senate consists of faculty members elected by the faculties of the Colleges of Business, Education, Engineering and Technology, Liberal Arts, Science, Nursing, and the Library. Each College shall select the appropriate number of members as designated by the Senate By Laws. The officers of the Faculty Senate are the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, who are elected by the Senate members for one year terms. The Senate also has an Executive Committee composed of the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, two other councilors at large elected for single year terms, and the past president.

[. . . ] The Faculty Senate has the following standing committees: A. The Committee on Academic Affairs deals with all matters pertaining to teaching, learning, and scholarship, including competence of faculty, promotions, admissions, grade loads.

B. The Committee on Faculty Affairs considers all matters affecting the general faculty.

C. The Committee on Committees each year recommends to the Senate faculty representatives to serve on University standing committees.

D. The Student Relations Committee deals with student matters and provides communication between faculty and student organizations.

Professional Agencies and Learned Societies

Regular review and revision of curriculum by faculty also occur as a result of periodic accreditation visits by professional agencies. For example, all professional education programs underwent extensive 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.

State Mandated Redesign for Teacher Education Program

As a further example of faculty involvement in curriculum review and revision, all professional education programs have been subject to State of Louisiana mandated redesign since 2000. These redesigns have required extensive review and revision of curriculum by collaborative teams that include faculty as well as external, relevant stakeholders (public school teachers, administrators, counselors,). (See Master of Education Redesign, February 2005, pages 31-32.)

Supporting Evidence

NOTE: Master Plan/Progress Reports for years prior to 2004 are available in hard copy in the Frazar Library

Minutes from the Secondary/K-12 Programs Advisory Council

Minutes and Curriculum Change Proposals from the College of Nursing

Minutes from the College of Business

Master of Education Redesign, February 2005 (see Program Section IV.B, which describes the redesign team)

Action Summary of the Graduate Council Meetings (http://www.mcneese.edu/colleges/grad/gcactions.asp#gg). Examples would include section III from each of the following summaries: 5/4/2005, 3/16/2005, 2/2/2005, 11/17/2004, 11/3/2004, 10/13/2004, 9/29/2004

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Action Summaries

Academic Advisory Council Action Summaries (Examples would include Item #2 from each of the following summaries: 2/28/2005, 6/27/2005, 11/28/2005, 12/19/2005)

Five-Year Assessment Cycle Document