3_4_12

Section 3: Comprehensive Standards

3.4.12 The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty.

Judgment of Compliance:
Compliance

Narrative/Justification for Judgment of Compliance:
The University Handbook clearly defines the process for curriculum development and approval in Section IV, including the role and responsibility of faculty within that process both from individual faculty and departments and from faculty committees:

While the initiation of an academic program change may come from any University constituency, it is the Instructional faculty, the deans, and the Provost who have the major responsibility for the development and organization of the curriculum. The Provost acts on the establishment, reorganization or discontinuance of academic programs after formal faculty consultation, with the Faculty Senate or Graduate Faculty Council, as appropriate. Changes in the University's curriculum are recommended by the Provost to the President for approval. In meeting this responsibility, the Provost may appoint such task forces and commission such studies as the Provost deems appropriate. The Undergraduate Academic Program Review Committee (PRC) advises the Provost on curriculum reorganization or program discontinuation and on the reallocation of resources committed to program support. The PRC utilizes data provided by many sources, including the Provost and the academic department under study. The recommendations of the PRC are forwarded directly to the Provost with copies to the department, Curriculum Committee, and Faculty Senate. The department is provided with a suitable period of time in which to respond to the recommendations. The response is forwarded directly to the Provost. If the Provost decides that a change in the curriculum should be considered, an appropriate proposal is forwarded to the dean for action.

The academic programs, procedures, and criteria described in this section apply only to matters which are generated from within the University's academic structure. This section does not apply to the actions of agencies or authorities outside the University which are empowered to establish requirements and initiate actions which may affect the University's programs, procedures, or criteria.

The procedure for adding and deleting courses, designating and recertifying intensive writing courses, establishing minors, and making internal adjustments to degree programs is also explained in this section of the University Handbook:

a. In these matters the Provost approves changes in the University curriculum upon the recommendation of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Faculty 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:

improve the quality and integrity of the curriculum;

meet a student demand;

reflect the University's mission;

are consistent with the aims and purposes of the department, college/school and University; and

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:

Deletion is approved by the academic department, the appropriate academic dean, and either the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Faculty Council (as appropriate); or

The courses are not offered within three consecutive calendar years and such deletion is not annulled by the dean.

The Provost's approval is required for all course deletions. In making such a decision, the effect of such a deletion on other curricular areas is a matter of consideration. The Instructional faculty is informed of all course deletions through the Provost.

College of Liberal Arts and Science
The most important faculty committees for curriculum responsibilities are described and defined in the University Handbook, Section XVI, The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) and The Undergraduate Academic Program Review Committee (PRC). The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Chairs also act as a reviewing and approval body for the College. The Faculty Council on Liberal Learning and Academic Life serves as a central committee responsible for managing the content, quality, and effectiveness of the core curriculum. Its responsibilities are set out in the University Handbook in Section XVII, University Governance, under 4.a, Appointed Faculty Committees. As currently constituted, the Faculty Council represents the university’s first multi-disciplinary, faculty committee charged with responsibility for general education:

The Faculty Council on Liberal Learning and Academic Life (FCLLAL) shall consist of one faculty member from each academic department appointed by the Assistant Dean for Liberal Learning upon consultation with the deans. The committee:

reports to the assistant Dean for Liberal Learning;

reviews proposals for the Liberal Learning Core;

assesses the Liberal Learning Core;

develops the Liberal Learning Signature;

implements the Liberal Learning Core;

and makes recommendations concerning courses to be integrated into the Liberal Learning core to the Assistant Dean of Liberal Learning.

In the spring of 2004 the University’s Board of Visitors approved the comprehensive curriculum changes in general education, now designated as the Liberal Learning Core. That process, characterized by faculty representation, is documented in the Report to the Provost of the Task Force on Curriculum and Academic Life. The recommended changes were voted on at every faculty level from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Chairs, the faculty of the Luter School of Business, The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and the Faculty Senate.

Before specific course proposals were developed by faculty and departments, the Task Force established not only the philosophic foundations of the university’s commitment to liberal learning but also the course objectives for the First-Year Seminar and the Area of Inquiry courses. The Faculty Council on Liberal Learning as well as the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee now carefully reviews these objectives. Assessment plans for the Liberal Learning Core also are built on the philosophical foundations of the core curriculum, course approval objectives, as well as the academic program review process.

All other curriculum changes in the College’s major courses follow the guidelines details in the University Handbook in Section IV.

Luter School of Business
The Luter School of Business follows the process for curriculum development and approval defined by the University Handbook in developing curricula and curricular improvements. The activities undertaken in the School's eventual replacement of the BS in Accounting (BSA) by an accounting major within the BSBA illustrates: The Dean initiated the review of the BSA in the context of the Commonwealth’s adoption of the 150 hour rule to sit for the CPA exam. Since the specific purpose of the BSA was to prepare undergraduate students for the exam, with the looming change in the required qualifications, the dean examined the curriculum, the number of program graduates sitting for the exam, their performance on the exam, and the BSA’s enrollment history. The report was presented to the accounting faculty, who were asked to create an alternative curriculum. The support documentation contains a complete description and history of the activities undertaken by the School's curriculum committee as well as the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. The result was an intensive review of the School's entire curriculum, from the business core to the specializations.

The parameters for the curriculum are determined by the availability and/or planned availability of resources. Related constraints include faculty workload, number of course preparations per semester, and expectations for scholarship and service. On two separate occasions in the past seven years, resource constraints precipitated curriculum review. The first focused on the BSBA and the second focused on the BSA. The outcome of the BSA review was a revised core curriculum and the creation of five majors under the BSBA umbrella. The dean established the parameters, based on resource availability, and the faculty created the curricula.

Curricular quality begins with the establishment of learning objectives followed by the creation of performance measures (now called assurance of learning measures) implemented to determine if the curricula, pedagogy, and a host of other variables have allowed the School to achieve its goals. One example is the ETS Major Field Test in Business. The Luter School's goal is to have two-thirds of graduating seniors’ performance to be at or above the 67th percentile of all students (nationally) who have taken the test. The goal is ambitious (given the starting point in 2001), and progress has been steady. This measure allows us to draw conclusions about both the quality and effectiveness of the business curriculum as do measures discussed in other sections of this report.

The faculty participate in the creation of the assessment plan. The Dean's office implements the plan and (acting as a staff function) analyzes the results, which are presented to the faculty and used in its continuous improvement process.

Support Documentation:
ETS Major Field Test in Business 2001 – 2003: Actual Performance vs. Goal
Joseph W. Luter, III School of Business Curriculum Committee Minutes:
          September 9, 2004
          September 28, 2004
          September 30, 2004
          October 14, 2004
Dean’s Memo and Proposal to Retire the Accounting Major
Dean’s Memo to the University Curriculum Committee – Accounting Major
Dean’s Memo to the University Curriculum Committee – Revised BSBA
University Handbook 06-07: Section IV – Academic Regulations and Information
University Handbook 06-07: Section XVI – University Administration
University Handbook 06-07: Section XVII – University Governance
Report to the Provost of the Task Force on Curriculum and Academic Life

Additional Live Web Resources:
None