Proposed Procedures for Reviewing QEP-Designated Courses
This proposed procedure is broken down into two parts. The first is how these courses will be
submitted to us, and what material will be required beyond the normal “Add a New Course”
review. The second part is how the Committee will conduct its review. For each part, I have
provided two possible alternatives. The purpose of this proposal is to start the conversation on
how the UGCC will implement the review of QEP-designated courses.
Submission
Proposal A
Perhaps the simplest way for the Committee to receive a request to review a new QEP course
without making any major changes to existing forms or procedures is to add a Yes/No checkbox
to the existing ANC form asking whether the submitted course is to be designated as a QEP
course. If the answer is “no,” then there is no change in the existing procedure. If the answer is
“yes,” then the submitting academic unit must provide a further write-up in addition to the course
syllabus that is now required. This additional write-up will need to explain sufficiently and
separately how the proposed course will demonstrate each of the three QEP1 criteria: plan,
conduct and report, and how these criteria fit into the overall course curriculum. How these
criteria are demonstrated will depend upon the discipline the course derives from. It will then be
the Committee’s responsibility to decide whether the submitting academic unit has adequately
addressed these criteria.
Proposal B
Alternatively, the UGCC could request of the Registrar’s office that an additional form be
created as an addendum to the standard ANC form. This form would be required for any
proposed QEP-designated course and must be signed and submitted with the ANC form. At a
minimum, the form would have space for the submitting academic unit to explain how the QEP1
criteria will be demonstrated in the course. If the Committee so wishes, additional information
could be requested on this form. While this approach would represent a more formal submission
request for a QEP course, it does have the downside of requiring additional paperwork and
signatures.
Review
Proposal A
Again with an eye towards simplicity and minimal change from the UGCC’s existing
procedures, one possible way for the Committee to review proposed QEP-designated courses is
to do what the Committee has been doing right along. Members of the committee currently
examine all aspects of a proposed new course including credit hours, restrictions, proposed text,
proposed grading scheme, and course content. Now, for a QEP course, this would also include a
review of the plan, conduct, and report criteria write-ups required of the submitting academic
unit. Each member would now additionally have to read the write-ups and decide whether the
course meets the required criteria to be a QEP course. If not, that member can pull the course
from the Consent Agenda just as is now done.
Proposal B
A much more formalized way of reviewing proposed QEP courses is to form a subcommittee of
2-4 members, preferably consisting of those members who have experience with QEP courses or
have been members of the QEPIC. The subcommittee can review the submission from the
academic unit, determine its compliance with the three QEP criteria, and report its
recommendation to the full UGCC for a vote. While this has the obvious advantage that the
entire UGCC’s burden will not be substantially increased (with the obvious exception of the
members of the subcommittee), it could result in delays while the subcommittee meets or
electronically discusses a proposed course. These delays could result in more electronic votes of
the full UGCC or simply a delay in getting the course approved. This, of course, could have
implications if the Committee is running up against a deadline for the catalog or to get something
approved for the following semester.
Whether Proposal A or Proposal B (or some other procedure) is ultimately implement, it will be
in the Committee’s best interest to have available to it examples of past QEP course requests so
that the level of compliance with the criteria for these past requests can be determined to help the
Committee be consistent with previous requests.