Section 3: Comprehensive Standards

3.4.1 The institution demonstrates that each educational program for which academic credit is awarded (a) is approved by the faculty and the administration, and (b) establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes.

Judgment of Compliance:
Compliance

Narrative/Justification for Judgment of Compliance:
Christopher Newport University is in compliance with this comprehensive standard. The University Handbook, SECTION IV, Academic Regulations and Information, describes how each course and/or program is approved by the faculty and the administration:

Changes in the University's academic programs, including general education or core curriculum changes, initiated from within the University are effected after this procedure is followed, or a deviation there from is approved by the Provost. The Provost may prescribe reasonable timetables for the procedure in order to ensure timeliness of action.

a. Step 1. Departmental Level
If a proposed change is initiated at the department level or involves an expansion or curtailment of the department's academic programs or a change to its general education/core curriculum offerings, the department reviews the change and forwards its recommendation and supporting evidence to the dean. In the case of general education/core curriculum changes, the proposal should be sent to all academic deans (CLAS and School of Business).

b. Step 2. College/School Level
Either upon receipt of the department's recommendation, a request from the Provost or at the Provost’s own initiative, the dean refers the proposed change and department recommendation to the academic faculty as a whole, or, if applicable, to an appropriate ad hoc interdepartmental body, usually the CLAS Chairs and the School of Business Curriculum Committee, for the purpose of reviewing the change and formulating its recommendation to the Dean. The Dean forwards the recommendation of the interdepartmental body or the faculty as a whole, along with his or her recommendation with accompanying evidence to either the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Curriculum Committee, as appropriate.

c. Step 3. Curriculum Committee Level
If the proposed change involves only the undergraduate program of the University, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee reviews the proposed change and accompanying evidence and recommendations and makes its recommendations to the Faculty Senate. If the proposed change involves only the graduate program of the University, the Proposal is forwarded from the Graduate Curriculum Committee to the Graduate Faculty Council.

d. Step 4. Faculty Level
The Faculty Senate or the Graduate Faculty Council, as appropriate, reviews the proposed change and makes its recommendations to the Provost.

e. Step 5. Provost Level
The Provost reviews the proposed change and recommendations. The Provost makes recommendations to the President.

f. Step 6. President Level
The President reviews the proposed change in academic programs and the recommendations. In the event of an affirmative decision by the President, the changes are submitted to the Board of Visitors.

5. Procedure for Other than Major Changes to Academic Programs (Adding and Deleting Courses, Designating and Recertifying Intensive Writing Courses, Establishing Minors, and Making Internal Adjustments to Degree Programs)

a. In these matters the Provost approves changes in the University curriculum upon the recommendation of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Programs Council, as appropriate.

b. Courses are added to the University curriculum, minor programs are established and internal adjustments to degree programs are made when evidence demonstrates that such changes:

  1. improve the quality and integrity of the curriculum;
  2. meet a student demand;
  3. reflect the University's mission;
  4. are consistent with the aims and purposes of the department, college/school and University; and
  5. are financially feasible.

These proposed curricular changes are submitted to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or to the Graduate Faculty Council, as appropriate, by appropriate academic dean and are accompanied by supporting evidence and the required recommendations.

If a proposed change of the kind addressed in this section involves only the graduate program of the University, then the procedure for making such a change follows steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 as described in this section. Otherwise, the procedure for making such a change follows steps 1, 2, 3, and 5, with the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee making its recommendations (step 3) directly to the Provost.

c. Courses are deleted from the University's curriculum if:

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
The process of the most recent and far-reaching change in the core curriculum since the university’s founding, now designated as the Liberal Learning Core, demonstrates the current strength of shared governance in approval of academic programs. Details, including the history and curricular development and approval processes, are contained in Report of the Task Force on Curriculum and Academic Life: Report to the Provost. The Task Force, an appointed faculty and academic administrator committee, was appointed on March 30, 2002. The final report was submitted to the provost on February 25, 2004. As part of the University’s efforts to tie the liberal learning core to national thinking on general education, a team of faculty and administrators attended the AAC&U Greater Expectations Institute in June 2003. Members of the task force also participated in 22 university-wide, open meetings with various members of the university faculty, staff and students. At meetings in November and December of 2003, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the School of Business faculty voted to endorse the Task Force proposals as did the Student Government Association. Following the University Handbook curriculum approval procedures, the University Curriculum Committee approved the proposals and submitted its recommendation to the provost. In June of 2004, the Board of Visitors approved the recommendations of the Task Force for the liberal learning core curriculum.

Ongoing planning and evaluation of each departmental program goals and learning outcomes are the responsibility of department faculty, the deans of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the University Program Review Committee, and the University Assessment and Evaluation Committee. The University Program Review report guidelines are available on the provost’s web page. Among the categories of review are Degree Program Goals, Support of the University’s Mission and Goals, and Student Profile, including, under C.1.a. “Measures of learning and other information for current students, including graduating seniors. This might include, for example, performance summaries on exit exams, work and education plans for graduation, and a summary statement examining student skills upon entry to the degree program.” Required departmental annual reports must address the annual assessment plan as well as action agenda items as a result of the Program Review Committee and dean’s action agenda. Student learning measures are central to this process. Most departments require capstone courses as a measure of student learning (see document list of departments). For example, a recent assessment update from the Department of Government and Public Administration bases student learning outcomes, in part, upon the University Strategic Plan: Vision 2010, including measures like an exit exam, a Senior Seminar designated as writing intensive, assessment of student internships as measuring the practical application of knowledge, and increased efforts to successfully prepare students for graduate education. In the Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures, assessed outcomes include the abilities (1) to identify and distinguish among basic vocabulary, grammar structures, and cultural elements and practice them in context; (2) to conduct research appropriately including review of primary and secondary sources; and (3) to evaluate literary works, realia (articles, films, etc.) by specifically identifying areas of strengths and weaknesses in each of the literature review, methodology, results, and discussions. Each learning objective includes means of assessment and criteria for success. More detail is available in assessment reports, including means of documentation and measurement, for college academic departments. See attached documentation as Departmental Assessment Reports.

Luter School of Business
 The Luter School of Business follows the University curriculum process described in the University Handbook, using its own School of Business Curriculum Committee (SBCC) to coordinate the review of the Luter School’s curricula and approval of internal curriculum changes. The Committee regularly reviews assessment data, in order to improve the educational experience. The SBCC is an advisory committee comprising department chairs, the School’s representatives to the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC), and at least one non-chair representative from each discipline within the School (accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing). The discipline representatives, elected by their departments, serve one-year terms. The SBCC reviews curriculum proposals, refers recommendations to the School’s faculty, and communicates the faculty’s decision to the Dean.

Recommendations for curriculum changes may originate from departments, dean, individual faculty, the SBCC, or any other Luter School constituency. Proposals are reviewed and approved by the proposing department before being submitted to the SBCC for review. Proposals must be in writing and must include the SBCC curriculum change form. A new element of this form is the rationale for the change and a summary of the assessment data used. The Chart C2 depicts the curriculum change process. A few explanatory notes follow:

The Dean may send the recommendation by the faculty forward to the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) with an endorsement, send a revised recommendation forward, or deny the recommendation. The UCC reviews the proposal, forwards a recommendation to the Faculty Senate who will make a recommendation to the Provost. Only changes approved by the Provost are implemented. Changes involving new degree programs also require the approval of the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV).

The Luter School faculty developed and periodically reviews and revises, as necessary, learning objectives for all BSBA students. The School conducts a biennial core curriculum conference (CCC) to consider how each course addresses these objectives. The faculty also reviews assessment results to determine if additions/deletions are appropriate. The CCC conducted in 2004, for example, led to the addition of a marketing research course because the core statistics course could not accommodate all the needs of the marketing major.

The following objectives represent the knowledge, skills, and attitudes business students should acquire as they progress through the curriculum:

Measures to assess learning outcomes and a sampling of results follow:

Educational Testing Service Major Field Test in Business
This instrument, administered to all seniors, determines mastery of the business core curriculum (business fundamentals) and achievement in the students' areas of specialization (business specializations). In 2003, about 60% of all seniors scored at or above the 60th percentile (business fundamentals). In the same year, the average performance of accounting students in the accounting portion of the test was at the 99th percentile, management students in the management portion of the test at the 94th percentile, finance students in the finance portion at the 94th percentile, and marketing students in the marketing area at the 99th percentile (business specializations). [Note: The number of graduating seniors with a specialization in economics was insufficient to support the use of an 'average performance' measure.]

Longitudinal Review of Student Writing Portfolio
 A member of the Department of English trained to score ETS's AP composition exam reviews writing products for a randomly selected sample of the most recent class of business graduates. Students are asked to write an essay on a selected topic in the business gateway course, Business Fundamentals, in their sophomore year. In the senior year, they compose an essay on a similar topic in the capstone course. This assessment is both a snapshot of students’ writing skills for the past year as well as a longitudinal (2 year) look at writing skills over a multi-year period. Students were assessed in various components including: paper design, format, content, and reference citation and documentation.

In 2005, the reviewer noted that the differences in both quality and substance in the sophomore writing samples and the senior writing samples are more pronounced than in the past. Weaknesses remain, including lack of a strong thesis, difficulty writing clear, concise sentences, and poor quality sources. These assessment results are presented to the faculty and discussed at the CCC.

External Reviewer Evaluation of All Student Project Presentations in the Capstone Course
For the past three years, members of the Luter School’s Board of Advisors attend these presentation sessions and evaluate skill/knowledge sets including critical, integrative, and strategic thinking; financial analysis, speaking skills, and professionalism, using a standard rubric. Two examples of actions resulting from this assessment are continuous improvement in the content and pedagogy of the capstone course and a review of the core course in financial management (currently being conducted) using syllabi and tests from other liberal arts universities with business programs.

Support Documentation:
Joseph W. Luter, III School of Business AACSB Self-Evaluation Report Chart C2 Curriculum Change Process
Joseph W. Luter, III School of Business Curriculum Committee Minutes
School of Business Assessment Plan 2002-2003
School of Business Assessment Record 2004-2005
University Handbook 06-07, Section IV
CLAS Departments with Capstone and/or Senior Seminars
New Course Proposal Form
Course Change Form
Department Assessment Report Examples:
          Honors
          Communication Studies
          Fine Arts
          Philosophy
          Sociology
          Biology
Program Review Committee Report Guidelines
CLAS Dean’s Action Agenda Items Examples
Task Force on Curriculum and Academic Life Report

Additional Live Web Resources:
None