May 13th, 2015
Dear Members of the Academic Senate,
The UEPC has been discussing the CCC’s request for requiring application for designation
renewal (redesignation) for all courses that have preciously over the last 4 years been approved to
satisfy one of the core areas of the core curriculum. Their request is for each course to be reassessed
every four years. This discussion began at the end of September 2014 and has continued to now.
The proposal attached to this letter is a result of our discussions and was voted on by the
UEPC at our April 27th meeting to send to the Senate (with a vote of 6 AYE 0 NAY 3 ABSTAIN.) This
proposal is not perfect and we would like the Senate to discuss it along with the larger issue of
assessment about which we have great concerns.
We are concerned that the CCC is trying to do too much at once. This year the CCC
continues to assess learning outcomes through the working groups. This seems to be taking an
incredible amount of time and energy, and the process seems to be very uneven. This assessment
still needs to be completed, then reported out to the community. It is apparent that next there will need
to be faculty development to help implement the findings of this assessment while at the same time
the CCC wants to set out on another round of assessment (redesignation and assessing different
learning outcomes than this past year.)
While they are in the midst of this huge campus wide assessment of every learning outcome
and the yearly working group assessments of the specific learning outcomes for which they collect
artifacts etc., the CCC would like to do a further project of re-examining for renewal all of the hundreds
of courses that have already been designated as satisfying a core area. This would entail evaluating
syllabi and prompts and apparently working with faculty to improve what they are doing. We do not
believe all of this can be done in a reasonable amount of time or done in a successful manner by the
CCC, nor do we think it is needed.
As mentioned in the attached proposal, we see a large amount of redundant assessment
happening in regards to the Core Curriculum. The courses are originally developed by faculty using
the CC learning outcomes as a guide as they are designed and discussed by the departments/
programs/authors. These proposals next go to the working groups of the CCC which then assess the
proposals’ structure and fit to the CC. The proposals continue their long assessment as they are
assessed by the Core Curriculum Committee itself. After being approved the courses are taught,
reassessed by faculty, departments, and programs again. In the meantime the working groups are
collecting artifacts from various courses to assess the successfulness of these approved courses in
satisfying the learning outcomes. In addition, these courses are discussed in the departments/
programs as part of their program reviews. This multiple pronged assessment by the CCC also is a
concern of the WASC.
There are two issues here; one is the redundancy of the assessment/evaluation of the
approved courses and another is a lack of confidence in the faculty’s role in the assessment. There is
faculty expertise involved in designing and assessing these courses by the host of the courses.
Requiring every approved course satisfying a core area to be re-evaluated every 4 years is extra work
that is redundant and stresses the faculty workload. Hence, we propose limiting the courses that need
to be renewed through the CCC to those which have a change affecting the learning outcomes or
those classes that are offered in the January Term due to the shortness of that session. This
information is stated in our proposal.
In terms of the CCC’s work we propose that they simplify the assessment process for the
learning outcomes. They need to identify what is the SINGLE most meaningful and most feasible form
of assessment and move forward from there. Perhaps once we have that assessment working
smoothly there can be a conversation about further types of assessment and the processes that the
CCC will use going forward.
Sincerely,
The Undergraduate Educational Policy Committee
Submitted by Kathy Porter, Acting Chair of the UEPC
A Proposal to the Senate from the UEPC on the Issue of Redesignation of Courses
Previously Approved for a Specific Core Area by the CCC
Whereas there are currently multiple assessment processes in which the Core Curriculum
Committee (CCC), its Working Groups (WG), the Program Review Board (PRC), and individual
departments engage in pedagogical discussion, assessment, and improvements, including those listed in
the section below, the Undergraduate Educational Policies Committee proposes that full semester
undergraduate courses (non January Term courses) at Saint Mary’s College of California which obtain
designation from the CCC in one of the three Core Curriculum areas not be required to apply for
redesignation at any time for any reason other than a change in the course which involves or affects one
or more of the core curriculum learning outcomes associated with its designation area. Those courses
which are required to undergo a redesignation process should be offered a streamlined online form such
as the one on the second page of this proposal in which to complete the process.
Current Pedagogical Assessments of Courses with Core Designation.
1. Initial Core Curriculum application which involves discussion and assessment by the hosting
department, a Core Curriculum working group and the CCC itself.
2. Each year the CC Working Groups collect and study artifacts which are used to study/assess
one of the learning outcomes associated with that group’s area.
3. Each year each individual department is required to study and assess one of its learning
outcomes which is connected to the core curriculum.
4. Every five years a department must conduct a thorough Program Review. The new guidelines
for program review include the following statements under the section II Curriculum Design
and Pedagogy part C:
For undergraduate programs, discuss how your curriculum is aligned with the
Core Curriculum? Please address the following:
i)
How does your program contribute to core curricula, especially in the
Pathways to Knowledge and Engaging the World areas?
ii)
How have you addressed the requirement for Writing in the Discipline?
SMC Core Curriculum Proposal for Redesignation Process
There are three categories of course redesignation. They are as follows:
(A) The language of any of the course’s learning goals relevant to the core designation is changing.
(B) The UEPC notifies the CCC that there is a significant/relevant change in the Catalog language for the
course or in the course itself.
(C) The course is a January term only CC designated course which has not been assessed by the CC in the
past 5 years.
Departments are responsible for initiating renewal for courses in category A, while the UEPC is responsible
for initiating renewal for courses in category B and individuals teaching a January Term course are responsible
for courses in category C.
The Renewal Process:
The proposals for renewal in Category A and B will be submitted in a timely manner once changes are made or
approved (in the B) category. Courses in category C must be submitted with enough time to be approved for the
future January term.
The CCC will designate a website for the Proposals to be submitted. The webpage will have the following
design: There should be a drop down option or a box to type in for each entry.
SMC Core Curriculum
Designation Renewal Proposal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Today’s Date
Name of proposer
Email of proposer
Department/Program of proposer
Number and Name of Course
If this proposal does not cover all sections of the course, which section does it cover?
Core area designation
Name of Department/Program course is housed in
Name(s) of Chair/Program Director
Year of original CC designation
11. Are there any changes in the course’s learning outcomes? Yes No
If there are no changes, move to question 12. If there are changes, then upload a page with the old and
new learning outcomes along with an explanation for the change in learning outcomes, along with a
sample syllabus of a section with the new learning outcomes.
12. Do all sections of the course that are covered by this proposal use the same learning outcomes? Yes No
If the answer is “Yes” then upload a sample syllabus from the last time the course was offered. If the
answer is “No” to this question upload a sample syllabus for each section that is using a different set of
learning outcomes.
13. Please submit two prompts/assignments for each learning outcome that have resulted in successful
completion of the learning outcomes.