2014 Core Curriculum Report Draft 2
Midwestern State University
August 2013
2014 Core Curriculum – Submission Components
Component I. Course Selection Process
A. Describe the institution’s process for ensuring that each course aligns with the
Foundational Component Area description and includes the required Core
Objectives.
MSU began with a clean slate relative to course offerings for the new 42-hour core.
Faculty members were asked to propose appropriate courses (current and new)
for inclusion in the core. The Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) developed a
proposal form for each FCA that included the FCA description and objectives to be
assessed. Information relative to course content, learning activities, and
assessment of core objectives was requested. Faculty also provided a course
syllabus and the assessment tools to be used. [LINK: PROPOSAL FORMS]
Proposed courses were submitted for college approval before they were
forwarded to the CCC for review. Upon receipt, three CCC members reviewed each
proposal and made recommendations to the full committee. [LINK: CHECKLISTS]
Proposals meeting FCA expectations were recommended to the Provost for
inclusion in the core. Proposals not meeting FCA expectations were returned to the
appropriate college dean for revision. Revised proposals were resubmitted to the
CCC by the college dean and reviewed in the same manner as noted above.
Component II. Core Objective Assessment Plan
The assessment of the Core Curriculum is an evaluation of attainment of the Core
Objectives.
Describe the institution’s process to determine the appropriate level of attainment
of each Core Objective.
In 2010, the Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) developed MSU’s Assessment Plan
for assessing general education competencies; this plan was approved by
Academic Council and adopted by the Board of Regents in fall 2010. AAC&U
Value Rubrics, which define expectations for college level learning, guided the
development of specific learning outcomes for each competency and were used to
assess student learning where appropriate. The Assessment Plan encompasses
entry, core course, and exit level assessments. [LINK: 3.5.1 COMPETENCIES &
ASSESSMENT]
In spring 2013, the CCC revised the above Assessment Plan to facilitate the
assessment of THECB Core Objectives in all core courses. [LINK: MSU REVISED
ASSESSMENT PLAN] AAC&U Value Rubrics provide expectations for college-level
learning for each Core Objective. [LINK: AAC&U Value Rubrics]
The most valuable data for assessing the Core Curriculum will come from an
evaluation of student attainment of THECB Core Objectives at the core course
level. Thus, the remainder of this report will focus on the assessment process at
the core course level.
Describe the institution’s plan for assessment of each Core Objective. Include the
following components of the institution’s plan:

Assessment methods – explain the methodology (institutional portfolios,
embedded assessment, etc.), describe the measures (must include at least
one direct measure), outline the frequency and timeline for assessment;
THECB Core Objectives will be assessed at the core course level. Assessments
will occur in a variety of contexts across core disciplines. Methods submitted by
faculty include:
o
o
o
o
o
Embedded exam questions, problems, and essays
Written assignments, reflection pieces, and case studies
Course projects, portfolios, and presentations
Research and laboratory experiences
Creative pieces and performances in the arts
The above methods facilitate direct assessment of student attainment of THECB
Core Objectives. AAC&U Value Rubrics provide the foundation for facultygenerated rubrics that will be used to assess student performance in each
context. To maintain consistency, courses with multiple sections will use the
same methods for assessment. Data will be collected each semester in all core
courses for each Core Objective. The various programs are responsible for data
collection, analysis, and reporting results.
At the present time, faculty members have developed and submitted initial
rubrics to assess Core Objectives in the courses they teach. Conceptually, the
initial rubrics demonstrate alignment with AAC&U Value Rubrics. The initial
rubrics require further refinement to show direct alignment with AAC&U Value
Rubrics relative to criteria across levels of attainment and scoring. This task will
take place during the 2013-14 academic year.
Data collected relative to program outcomes and general education
competencies is analyzed annually within the disciplines. Analysis of data
collected for assessing student attainment of THECB Core Objectives will be an
extension of the assessment process already in place at MSU.

Criteria/Targets – explain the criteria and targets for the level of attainment
of each Core Objective, include references to externally informed
benchmarks;
The AAC&U Value Rubrics provided guidance for determining the criteria
distinguishing levels of attainment for each Core Objective. Following the 4point scoring system used on the AAC&U Value Rubrics, a score equal to or
greater than 2 was established by the CCC to represent satisfactory attainment
for each Core Objective. This score appears to represent an attainment level
appropriate for students at completion of the core, which is generally around 60
hours of coursework. Faculty using embedded questions on exams developed
questions reflective of the same level of attainment.
During discussion in committee, CCC members felt that a score of 3 or 4 would
be more representative of student performance at the capstone level.
Performance expectations at the capstone level should reflect the ability to
apply basic skills in a professional context associated with a specific program of
study.
For each Core Objective, a success rate of 70% was set as the initial target (70%
of students will score 2 or higher). The CCC, in consultation with faculty,
believed this was a reasonable expectation for our student population.

Analysis – explain how the results of the assessment will be evaluated;
The initial analysis of data, reporting of results, and identification of ways in
which to improve student learning occur at the program level. Program reports
are submitted annually to MSU’s data storage system (WEAVE). The CCC will
retrieve the findings and recommendations from these reports associated with
the Core Objectives.
In order to conduct an in-depth evaluation, the CCC will study the assessment
results for two Core Objectives each year. Thus, the evaluation of results for all
six Core Objectives will take place over a 3-year period. Other assessment
results obtained relative to each objective (entry and exit assessments) will be
studied following the same 3-year cycle. This approach will provide the CCC
with a more global perspective of student attainment. [LINK: CCC DATA
ANALYSIS & REPORTING]
The CCC will be able to study the assessment results from a university-wide
perspective, and if warranted, by college, program and/or course. The CCC
generally focuses on the more global perspective, reporting overall findings and
making general recommendations relevant to the entire university community.

Actions and Follow-up – explain the process for improving student learning
based on the assessment results.
Each year the CCC will compile a summary of assessment results and
recommendations for the THECB Core Objectives of focus that academic year.
Data for this report will be culled from the program assessment reports
submitted annually to MSU’s data storage system (WEAVE).
The CCC report will include the following information for each Core Objective
studied:
o
o
Summary of current results with relevant data tables
Comparison of current results with previously collected data,
o
o
o
including actions taken at the program level relevant to student
performance
Summary of improvements and successes
Summary of problem areas and issues
General recommendations for improving student learning
This report is submitted to the Provost for review and action. The Provost
assumes responsibility for recommendations necessitating action at the
university level and disseminates relevant information to the Deans. The Deans
oversee any recommendations requiring action within their respective colleges.
Ultimately, targeted recommendations necessitating action will occur at the
program level.
The Coordinating Board encourages institutions to voluntarily participate in a peer
review of the assessment of the six Core Objectives. This review may be included with
the Core Objective Assessment Plan.
A peer review of MSU’s assessment of the THECB Core Objectives has not been
discussed. The CCC will address this issue during the 2013-14 academic year.
Component III. Proposed Courses
All proposed courses must align with the description of at least one Foundational
Component Area (FCA) and incorporate the appropriate Core Objectives. The FCA and Core
Objective definitions with Core Objective alignment can be found on the Elements of the
Core Curriculum website, on the attached Quick Reference Guide, and in Coordinating Board
rules, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, Section 4.28.
A. Provide the course prefix, number, title, semester credit hours, component area,
and Texas Common Course Number (TCCNS) equivalent (www.tccns.org), as
applicable.
Refer to the Table of Courses. [LINK: Table of Courses]
B. Provide link(s) to specific documentation of how the students will demonstrate the
Core Objectives, such as syllabi and other relevant material. (For example, course
information website as required by Texas Education Code Chapter 51, Subchapter
Z, Section 974 – Internet Access to Course Information.)
Refer to File of Core Course Documentation. [LINK: Core Course Documentation]
Areas of Special Consideration
Government/Political Science (Universities only)
If GOVT 2305 and GOVT 2306 equivalents are not included as course options in the
Government/Political Science FCA, explain how a transfer student who completes either
one or the other (GOVT 2305 or GOVT 2306), but not both, can fulfill the statutory
requirements (Texas Education Code 51.301).
For students who transfer both GOVT 2305 and 2306, their government
requirement is complete. GOVT 2305 transfers as POLS 1433, and GOVT 2306
transfers as POLS 1333. Students who transfer only one (GOVT 2305 or GOVT
2306) can complete their requirement by taking POLS 1333. For cases in which the
student is transferring GOVT 2306, the student must take POLS 1333 and the
equivalency for GOVT 2306 for that particular student will be changed to POLS
1433.
Explanation of Overflow Semester Credit Hours in a Foundational Component Area (as
applicable)
If the minimum semester credit hours (SCH) above those outlined in rules are required or
optional for any Foundational Component Area, explain the SCH disbursement in the
Component Area Option and/or potential effects on the overall degree requirements.
Beyond the 42-hour core, MSU has additional requirements specified for students
seeking BS or BA degrees. Bachelor of Science students are required to take
additional hours in math and science, whereas Bachelor of Arts students take
additional hours in foreign language and literature or humanities. Overflow
semester credit hours above those outlined in the rules for any FCA or CAO must
be accounted for within the additional hours required for the BS or BA degree, or
within the students’ required hours for the major. This disbursement assures that
degree requirements will not exceed 120 semester credit hours.