|
3.4.12 |
The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty. |
|
X |
Compliance |
|
|
Conditional Compliance |
|
|
Non-Compliance |
|
RATIONALE FOR COMPLIANCE JUDGMENT |
|
|
|
Nashville State Technical Community College (NSCC) is in compliance with SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.4.12 for curriculum content, quality, and assessment. Processes at Nashville State comply with Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) Guideline A-010 and Policy 2:01:01:00 for establishing new programs [1] [2]. Nashville State's Curriculum Committee Manual is available in the public folders of Academic Affairs and in Sharepoint. The Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) must approve academic proposals specified in THEC Policy No. A1:0 and A1:1, New Program Review Criteria. These policies serve as resources for the development of all academic proposals [3].
The NSCC Curriculum Committee Manual [4] states that: “The institution places principal responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with the faculty. Nashville State’s Curriculum Committee has primary responsibility for oversight of all aspects of curriculum. The Committee is responsible for:
· setting strategic directions and procedures for curriculum development; · acting on proposals for major curriculum change; and · reviewing results from the assessment of Nashville State's instructional program, including Performance Funding information.”
Typically, faculty members initiate curriculum proposals at the program level. Program coordinators and/or deans review and approve curriculum proposals with faculty in the discipline area prior to submitting them for Curriculum Committee review. Every proposal has an impact on other areas of the college, and, therefore, requires division and campus-wide review. Minutes of Curriculum Committee meetings, proposals, meeting dates, informational items, and the Curriculum Committee Manual are posted on Sharepoint, a site accessible to all Curriculum Committee Members, effective January 2007 [5]. Prior to January 2007, proposals and minutes [6] were posted in the Academic Affairs public folders.
Curriculum Approval Process
The following steps outline the process for proposing new courses and programs:
1. Faculty and academic coordinators/deans investigate the need and feasibility of a new program/course in several ways: through discussions with colleagues, meetings with advisory committees, feedback from professional groups, feedback from employers, and consultation with TBR staff. If applicable, business/industry contacts and students are surveyed for input regarding program demand and curriculum content.
2. Faculty design the curriculum and identify equipment and resource needs.
3. Using the designated forms, program coordinators prepare the curriculum proposal for the new program/course in accordance with TBR Guideline A-010.
4. Program coordinators obtain necessary approvals and submit the proposed program/course to the Curriculum Committee for review and approval.
5. The Curriculum Committee forwards approved curriculum through the Faculty Senate, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President for approval as appropriate.
6. If required, the proposal is then submitted to the TBR and, if approved, to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
Program termination and inactivation follow similar steps. Proposed changes and revisions of courses are sent by the dean and/or the program coordinator to the Curriculum Committee for action and, if appropriate, for recommendation to the Faculty Senate. Upon approval by the Faculty Senate, the material is submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for approval before curriculum modifications are implemented.
Substantive changes/additions/deletions to curriculum must be approved by a quorum of Curriculum Committee. Since representatives from all academic areas are represented on the Committee, the impact of proposals on other areas of the college can be discussed and assessed. Committee members have an opportunity to provide input, ask questions, and voice concerns.
NSCC’s Curriculum Committee is chaired by a faculty member and is composed of both administrators (non-voting) and faculty (voting). Voting membership includes three faculty representatives from each of five academic divisions, typically including program coordinators, and two representatives selected by the Faculty Senate. Nonvoting members attend all meetings, participate in discussions, and receive all communications relative to Curriculum Committee action [4].
Content of the Curriculum
NSCC faculty members have primary responsibility for creating and maintaining the content of the curriculum. A program description, list of required courses, and list of approved elective courses for every degree and certification program is published in the catalog. Course outcomes, determined and created by faculty, appear on all syllabi and other pertinent materials. Faculty may add additional outcomes to individual course sections but may not delete any outcomes that haven approved for the entire course (all sections).
Master syllabi, developed by faculty and program coordinators, are available on the college website [7]. Faculty select texts, create course outlines, request and obtain instructional materials, generate syllabi, and revise courses as needed. Individual faculty members use the common framework of the master syllabi to create individual course syllabi. In addition to basic information such as faculty contact information, course description, course outcomes, required text and materials, ADA policy, and Student Conduct policy, instructors include an overview of the course, instructor expectations, grading policies, and attendance policies.
Faculty in career/technical programs meet with their advisory committees to gain feedback and suggestions about course/program development and revision [8]. Faculty who teach general education courses for transfer consult colleagues at sister institutions for guidance in creating courses that will transfer. TBR’s General Education Common Core courses provide some consistency in curriculum and learning outcomes and influences the direction of course development [9].
The college supports faculty development of course and program content through professional development activities on campus [10], subsidy of professional development/training activities in the discipline, NSCC Online (a faculty committee with oversight of web-based and hybrid courses), library funding allocated by area, Instructional Technology Services [11], and the newly-established Faculty Study/Training Grant.
Quality of the Curriculum
NSCC faculty have primary responsibility for the quality of the curriculum through participation in Curriculum Committee, through instructional division activities, and for their individual classes.
Whether through program accreditation or discipline-specific evaluations, academic divisions work to ensure that courses and programs maintain desired standards of quality. For example, in the English, Humanities, and Arts division, writing faculty are working on a grading rubric and grading criteria for ENGL 1010 English Composition I. Standard, skill-based grading rubrics will enhance course consistency and support a more standardized skill level for students successfully exiting the course.
Curriculum quality is also monitored through the faculty evaluation process. Each faculty member completes an annual Performance Evaluation, detailing instructional accomplishments, campus and community involvement, and professional development activities. Faculty work with their academic deans to score the criteria and to identify areas needing improvement. IDEA student evaluations, initially implemented Fall 2006, provide faculty with detailed feedback about teaching effectiveness [12]. Faculty receive diagnostic reports for each class as well as individual student comments. Since faculty may add questions to the IDEA instrument, targeted feedback about curriculum may also be obtained.
Faculty are expected to keep courses updated, to review texts periodically, to request and use technology as appropriate in the classroom, to participate in campus and disciplinary professional development activities, and to meet any credential requirements. Individual faculty members submit annual requests for Professional Development funding, and requests are funded in keeping with college priorities.
Program coordinators are responsible for identifying and requesting equipment, software, operating funds, and other instructional materials to maintain effective curriculum. The Business Office emails budget request forms during the spring and fall revision budget cycles so that requests can be forwarded to the appropriate coordinator and/or dean.
Within the parameters of course standards and outcomes, faculty members have basic rights of academic freedom and the ensuing responsibility. TBR Policy 5:02:03:30 Academic Freedom and Responsibility applies to all faculty members at Nashville State Technical Community College [13]. This policy specifically addresses faculty members’:
The college supports quality of instruction through the Instructor of the Year Award ($500 awarded in professional development funding to two faculty), Faculty Study/Training Grant (three hours of release time for two faculty each spring and fall), TBR Distance Education Committee Award for Instructional Excellence, stipend for development of web courses, designated library resources, and program operating funds.
Assessment of Curriculum
Faculty members oversee curriculum assessment by participating in program review, in division activities/projects, through the IDEA student evaluation process, and through grading and assessing student achievement in their individual classes.
Comprehensive, systematic college-wide assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of academic program is ongoing. These assessment processes include:
· Accreditation review of all accreditable programs; · Assessment of all other degree and certificate programs; · Student ratings of classroom performance; · Exit testing of all degree graduates · Surveys of enrolled student, alumni/alumnae, and employer satisfaction · Monitoring of transfer, retention, and job placement rates
Tennessee’s Performance Funding Program awards points and supplemental funding to campuses based on points earned through established standards. NSCC reports performance annually on standards that include assessment of general education and of major fields, placement, enrollment goals, retention rates, and alumni and enrolled student surveys [14].
At NSCC, during the 2006-2007 academic year, the Computer Networking Technology program and the A.S. and A.A. degrees completed Academic Audits [15]. Faculty recommendations for improvement and the report of an external Academic Audit team will be incorporated into the planning process. Culinary Arts experienced the most recent accreditation review at the college [16].
Faculty also assess curriculum through division-specific instruments designed to measure student achievement of important learning objectives. For example, in Spring 2006, the Mathematics and Science division faculty members assessed the extent to which students had mastered specific learning outcomes. Results showed that 71% of math questions were answered correctly on assessment tools that tested course and student degree outcomes related to math. In the sciences, the success rate was 66% as it relates to scientific thought processes. Faculty are making changes in their courses to address areas of weakness discovered in this review.
In BUS 2900 Management Applications, a course taken during students’ final semester, students take a final exam that assesses their achievement of program outcomes. Results of the test performance are used to make changes in the curriculum. Faculty members analyze responses and identify where corrective actions are needed. For example, one Business Management program objective for students is the ability to “explain how some forms of conflict can be positive.” Faculty discovered in spring 2006 that students performed below expectations on five items designed to assess this objective, although there was some improvement from the previous year. This concept is apparently difficult for students to master. Faculty are, therefore, increasing their emphasis on the positive role of workplace conflict through class activities in both the capstone and core courses.
Faculty in NSCC’s Occupational Therapy A.A.S. program, concerned about the pass rates of graduates applying for licensure, began revising its curriculum in 2003, and the pass rate increased from 60% in 2004 to 96% in 2006. The first class admitted under the revised curriculum was the fall 2004 cohort, supporting evidence that the curriculum revisions are having a positive effect on licensure test pass rates.
The IDEA Student Evaluation Instrument asks about students’ perception of progress on relevant objectives pre-determined as “Important” or “Essential” to the course by the instructor. The IDEA diagnostic report then gives the faculty member a summary of perceived progress on the chosen objectives, a description of the course and students, detailed responses on specific items, and assessment of teaching methods. The report suggests teaching methods/styles found to be most effective in student achievement of those objectives selected as most important by that faculty member for that particular class. The IDEA website offers resources for faculty improvement of teaching effectiveness [17].
Finally, faculty members assess the effectiveness of curriculum by constructing assignments, exams, classroom activities, and projects that correlate with achievement of learning outcomes. While grade distribution reports are meaningful when interpreted in light of stated grading criteria, pass rates and grade analysis can also provide insight into the effectiveness of instruction and content. For example, in Fall 2005, the pass rate for ENGL 1010 English Composition I was 72 %, indicating that almost three-fourths of students exiting the course had mastered the outcome to “Compose essays with correct diction, syntax, usage, grammar, mechanics, and correct MLA format.” However, anecdotal information presented during the Academic Audit process revealed that instructors on the whole believe a significant number of students entering ENGL 1020 English Composition II do not have the research skills necessary to be successful in that course. Consequently, faculty are working to construct grading criteria and rubrics that will better delineate specific skills. Implementation of QEP critical thinking projects as they relate to research projects are also being discussed.
Career/technical program faculty look at NSCC’s Job Placement Data and Employer Surveys to determine if important outcomes for their courses are being achieved. In 2005, 100% of the 33 graduates in the Early Childhood program were working in field. In Business, 98% of the 60 graduates were placed in field. Overall, 94% of 384 graduates were employed in jobs related to their training [19].
|
|
DOCUMENTATION |
SOURCE LOCATION |
|
[1] TBR Policy A-010 on establishing a new instructional program |
docs\TBR_Academic_Guideline_A_010_Academic_Program_Proposals.htm |
|
[2] TBR Policy 2:01:01:00 Instructional Program Approval |
docs\TBR_Academic_Policy_2_01_01_00_Academic_Program_Approval.htm |
|
[3] THEC Policy No. A1:0 and A1:1, New Program Review Criteria. |
|
|
[4] NSCC Curriculum Committee Manual |
|
|
[5] Sharepoint Website |
|
|
[6] Curriculum Committee Minutes |
docs\NSCC_Curriculum_Committee_September2006_Minutes.pdf docs\NSCC_Curriculum_Committee_October2006_Minutes.pdf |
|
[7] Course syllabi on website. Click on specific program to access syllabi |
http://www.nscc.edu/catalog/desc
|
|
[8] Advisory committee minutes |
docs\NSCC_Advisory_Committee_Minutes_Entrepreneurship.pdf docs\NSCC_Advisory_Committee_Minutes_Arch_Civil_Constr_Eng_Tech.pdf |
|
[9] TBR Common General Education Core |
|
|
[10] Campus inservice schedule |
|
|
[11] Instructional Technology Services Resource Center website |
http://www.nscc.edu/irc/index.html
|
|
[12] IDEA student evaluation |
|
|
[13] NSCC Academic Freedom Policy (page A-52) |
|
|
[14] NSCC 2006 Performance Funding Summary |
docs\NSCC_Performance_Funding_Summary_of_2005_2006_Report.pdf |
|
[15] Self-study for Academic Audit for A.A. and A.S. degrees |
docs\NSCC_Academic_Audit_Self_Study_for_AA_and_AS_Degrees.pdf |
|
[16] Accreditation self-study and visiting team report for Culinary Arts A.A.S. degree |
docs\NSCC_Program_Accreditation_Self_Study_for_Culinary_Arts.pdf
docs\NSCC_Program_Accreditation_Evaluators_Report_for_Culinary_Arts.pdf |
|
[17] IDEA Pod Pages |
|
|
[18] NSCC 2005 Employment Report |
docs/NSCC_Job_Placement_Summary_Table_for_2005_Graduates.pdf |