presented by
Rob Till, Chair UAC
Bruce Fox, Chair LSC & member of UAC
Craig Bain, Chair UCC
Niranjan Venkatraman, member UGC & UAC
PROCESS

Curriculum & Assessment Work Group, in summer
2013, recognized compelling need to integrate
curriculum, assessment, and program review
processes on campus.

Foundations of proposal:

A faculty committee would collectively set the expectations
for curricula (not content) of degree programs. Expectations
would guide:
 Development of curriculum
 Decision making regarding curriculum proposals, and
 Review of degree programs during Academic Program
Review.

The work group recommended re-designing the
curricular-focused committee structures and reporting
processes to support the expectations.

Proposal was presented to campus groups for
feedback, including: ACCA, FSExC, PALC, ACADA, UAC,
Faculty Senate, LSC, UCC, ACC, and UGC.


Feedback identified strengths and areas of concern
Proposal was revised based on the feedback…
Strengths of the proposal:
Formal adoption of expectations for curriculum
design and assessment
 Combination of curriculum & assessment
processes
 Incorporation of a review of curriculum design
and assessment of student learning into the
Academic Program Review process
 Assurance we have institutional practices that
satisfy requirements of NAU’s regional
accreditor (Higher Learning Commission)

Areas of concern:

Implementation issues (i.e., “too much, too fast”)

Workload for chairs and faculty

Workload and training of committee members to quickly
adapt and learn a new process

Continuous Course Improvement Documents seen as
“busywork”

Perceived duplication of reporting requirements for
programs that have discipline-specific accreditation

Perceived limitations on curricular design (i.e.,
standardization of curricula)
REVISED PROPOSAL

Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum
will frame the development, approval, and
review of curricula.

Re-structuring of curricular-focused committees
Details
Expectations for
Program Curriculum
Degree

Mission and Purpose of a Degree Program *

Degree Program Student Learning Outcomes *

Curriculum Design with a Curriculum Map

Strategic Course Learning Design which supports Degree
Program Student Learning Outcomes

Systematic Assessment of Degree Program Student Learning
Outcomes *

Use of Assessment Findings for Continual Improvemt. *
* Already required as part of current policies
Re-structured Campus Curriculum/Assessment Committees
Oversees
review of
curricular
proposals
Tentative Timeline for Implementation
Spring 2014
 ACCA would develop implementation plan for re-structuring
campus curriculum and assessment committees/processes.

ACCA would obtain feedback on plan from the UAC, UCC, UGC, and
LSC, then report to the Fac Senate Exec Comm.

Support faculty & degree programs to achieve expectations
AY 2014-2015
 Continue to support fac. & deg. programs to achieve expect.

Begin to integrate processes for curriculum and assessment

Develop plan for re-structured committees for AY15-16
AY 2015-2016
 Continue to support fac. & deg. programs to achieve expect.

Implement new committee structure
We request that the Faculty Senate:
A. Approve the Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum that
will frame…
the review of degree programs as part of the Academic Program
Review process
the development and approval of curricula
B. Approve the re-structuring of curriculum &
assessment
committees/processes to ensure that these aid degree
programs in achieving “Expectations”
C. Charge academic leaders with

Identifying and providing support to degree programs to
prepare for their Academic Program Reviews & to implement
their action plans following review process

Monitoring extent to which degree programs achieve facultydriven curricular expectations to help ensure
implementation
QUESTIONS?
What issues do you have or have you heard that
we have not yet addressed?
How re-structured committees/processes work?
 University
Curriculum and Assessment Committee
will collectively set expectations for degree
programs.
 Chairs/directors
will collectively engage faculty to
align degree programs with expectations.
 College
Curriculum and Assessment Committees will
apply expectations in decision-making regarding
curriculum proposals.
 Academic
leaders and faculty will utilize the
expectations in developing strategic plans for
improvement of student learning as part of the
Academic Program Review’s Action Plan.
Response to Feedback: A Revised Proposal…

Removing the Continuous Course Improvement Document and
reducing workload of University Curriculum and Assessment
Committee members

Clarifying use of Expectations for Degree Program Curriculum as a
framework for the development of curriculum and review of degree
programs during academic program review but not as a limitation on
curricular content

Extending implementation timeline

Clarifying that annual Assessment Reporting requirements will
remain the same

Accredited programs will follow their accreditors’ existing
accreditation processes

Non-accredited degree programs will continue to participate in
NAU’s academic program review process

Highlighting that 4 of 6 expectations in the proposal are already
required by programs. The remaining two expectations
(Curriculum Design with a Curriculum Map; Strategic Course
Learning Design) ensure quality curriculum and meaningful
assessment

Combining the curriculum and assessment committees at the
college and university level

Continuing to maintain that the Faculty Senate charge
academic leaders with identifying and providing support to
degree programs to prepare for their Academic Program
Reviews, as well as providing support for implementing Action
Plans following Academic Program Review process

Continuing to address the requirement of NAU’s regional
accreditor (Higher Learning Commission) that all accredited
institutions engage in practices of assessment of student
learning for continual improvement.