Program and Course Redesign Checklist
Semester Conversion provides the University of Cincinnati with an historic, extraordinary
opportunity to effect transformational changes throughout UC’s academic calendar, curriculum,
and pedagogy. At the heart of the semester-conversion process lies curriculum redesign.
This checklist provides faculty with an inventory of considerations and resources to guide them
in rethinking and redesigning the curriculum. It is not a list of requirements but rather a map to
those emerging best practices that can produce energizing change.
Hot-linked items throughout this checklist will lead you to further information, if desired,
whether information on the web or else in the form of appendices at the end of this document.
Our efforts around semester conversion will leave a profound legacy for the next generations of
UC instructors and students. If we fully realize the potential behind semester conversion, then
that legacy will embody those pedagogical considerations that are designed to produce the best in
improved access, transferability, learning, and success for our students.
Integrated Planning
Prior to the creation of individual courses, each unit should design a holistic plan for the range
and quantity of courses to be offered within the semester framework.
yes
no
Specified student learning outcomes for the programs and courses have been
identified.
yes
no
Individual courses have been internally coordinated to contribute to overall
program goals.
Program Modernization and Accreditation
The program and courses have been updated to meet state-of-the-art professional and
disciplinary standards and accreditation requirements:
yes
no
In the case of an accredited program, we have determined that this program
meets the designated and appropriate semester standards.
yes
no
In the case of a program that needs but fails to meet designated and
appropriate standards, we have determined the means by which the curriculum
will address these deficiencies and come to meet the necessary professional or
disciplinary standards.
Page 1 of 7
Assessment for Accountability and Program Improvement
The program and courses redesign has been informed by existing assessment data and by
reflection upon the most recent program review:
yes
no
The program has developed an assessment plan that addresses each of the
learning outcomes.
yes
no
The program has established feedback mechanisms for reviewing and
updating the curriculum in light of assessment data.
Cross- Unit Coordination and Collaboration
Because semester conversion requires the simultaneous revisioning of the curriculum across all
units, it provides a unique opportunity to forge new or strengthened interdisciplinary linkages
and to create a foundation for integrative learning.
yes
no
We have discussed course and program redesign with other programs that
require our courses so to assure that their needs are being considered,
especially in the case of foundational courses and service courses.
yes
no
We have provided opportunities by which our courses and program might be
broadened through interdisciplinary linkages and perspectives.
Pedagogy Considerations
yes
no
Specified student learning outcomes for all courses will be identified on
course syllabi.
yes
no
In the case of courses that will be taught by more than one faculty member,
the appropriate conversations have taken place to arrive at commonly agreed
upon student learning outcomes and a fundamental identity that is consistent
across all of its class sections.
Where appropriate, the following active-learning pedagogies have been integrated into one or
more courses in the program:
o
yes
no
service learning and/or community-based learning
o
yes
no
undergraduate research
o
yes
no
internships
o
yes
no
problem-based learning and/or inquiry-based learning
o
yes
no
collaborative projects based on small-group activities
o
yes
no
interdisciplinary projects involving other classes
Page 2 of 7
o
yes
no
study-abroad opportunities
o
yes
no
electronic portfolios
o
yes
no
class wiki or blog
o
yes
no
case studies
o
yes
no
simulations
o
yes
no
Other: ________________________________
Considerations for Undergraduate semester-based major programs only:
yes
no
We have determined that our program will include all courses and experiences
required by the semester-based General Education Program.
yes
no
We have determined that our program intentionally contributes to the
achievement of the Baccalaureate Competencies (critical thinking, knowledge
integration, social responsibility, and effective communication).
yes
no
We have considered various opportunities for Minors and Certificates.
yes
no
Where appropriate, we have identified pathways for students interested in
completing a double major involving this program.
yes
no
We have determined the ways in which the program is consistent with the
goals of Integrated Core Learning.
yes
no
We have identified First Year components (e.g., suggested courses,
experiences, activities, etc) for students in this program.
yes
no
We have considered various forms of experiential learning (e.g., co-op,
internship, study abroad, clinical placements, exhibits and performances,
service learning, undergraduate research) that are appropriate for students
majoring in our program.
yes
no
We have developed plans for advising students in our program, including
guidelines for how to build experiential learning into a program of study.
yes
no
We have designated appropriate opportunities for student reflection as part of
these experiences.
yes
no
We have provided opportunities for broadening of learning through
interdisciplinary perspectives in this program.
yes
no
We have provided opportunities for writing and for developing writing skills
throughout the degree program.
Page 3 of 7
yes
no
We have discussed course genealogy for quarter-to-semester courses,
including guidelines for grade replacements for quarter courses.
Considerations for Graduate semester-based programs only
yes
no
We have established doctoral-level orientation courses for new students that
cover: the Graduate School and program policies; the selection of advisors
and committee members; the qualifying examination process; development of
research agendas; dissertation writing; student professional development;
career opportunities; and other topics.
yes
no
We have established doctoral courses preparatory for dissertation work.
yes
no
We have created preparation and training opportunities for graduate students
who will be teaching in our program.
Considerations for Co-op semester-based programs only
yes
no
We have worked with Professional Practice to devise an appropriate co-op
calendar and scheduling plan.
yes
no
We have worked with Professional Practice to understand employment market
conditions which may impact co-op placement (i.e. seasonal hiring needs of
target industries, availability of co-op students from competing universities,
etc).
yes
no
We have considered which experiential opportunities to include as a co-op
option.
yes
no
We have devised a plan for students who cannot stay within a given cohort
because of course failure, illness, ROTC requirements, athletic requirements,
and the like.
yes
no
We have worked with Arts & Sciences to coordinate the scheduling of any
required courses taught by A&S for this program.
Appendices
General guidelines for “foundational” courses:

Overall definition: A foundation course should be viewed as either a GenEd BoK; an
introduction to a field, discipline, or profession; an introduction to college; or a course
with a Transfer Assurance Guideline (TAG) or one that is part of the Ohio Transfer
Module (OTM). If the course is a common prerequisite, it can also be considered
foundational.
Page 4 of 7

Entry-level courses and course sequences should be assigned the "lowest" course
numbers, with the “higher” numbers going to more rigorous courses and course
sequences.

BoK designated courses should be introductory and should also be appropriate as a
"complete" introduction to a field, one that could be the only course that students take in
a particular discipline. These courses should be of general value and interest and might be
ones that programs recommend to their students on a routine basis. Generally they have
few or no pre-requisites. The BoK designation is usually reserved for freshman (1000)
and sophomore (2000) level courses. In a very few instances, programs may provide a
BoK designation to 3000 level courses, although the above characteristics should apply.

Introductory courses that currently exist at the 300 level but that are intended ideally for
students in their second year should probably be given a 2000 level number for semester
purposes.
This information (including some links to relevant resources such as the TAG web site) is from
the Course Construction Template C-1, available at the Semester Conversion web site:
www.uc.edu/conversion
Return to Checklist
Program Redesign within Semester Conversion
These guidelines are designed to aid academic programs in considering possibilities for
transformative change – at the program level – within the conversion to semesters.
Student learning outcomes (SLO’s) for an academic program: the knowledge, skills, or behaviors
that a program’s students should be able to demonstrate upon program completion. Program
outcomes represent broad statements that incorporate many areas of inter-related knowledge and
skills developed over the duration of the program through a wide range of courses and
experiences. They represent the big picture, describe broad aspects of behavior, encompass
multiple learning experiences, and are representative of an end stage of performance.
SLO’s for a course, on the other hand, refer to the knowledge, skills, or behaviors that a student
should be able to demonstrate upon completion of a specific course.
In the case of SLO’s for both programs and courses, here are two basic questions:
1. What do you want students to learn and be able to do by the end of the program/course?
2. What can you put in place that allows you to determine if students are doing that or not?
When writing these SLO’s, define them from a student’s perspective and not from an instructor.
Also, outcomes should be measurable and described in behavioral and observable terms.
Within the overarching sense that “curriculum redesign drives course redesign,” the CET&L’s
“Semester Conversion Discussion Series” has developed some guidelines that may be helpful
Page 5 of 7
in clarifying these distinctions. The discussion for March 18, 2009, for instance, led to these
questions that we might ask of individual courses:
1. What level of mastery should we require of students for successful advancement beyond
this course?
2. What would a successful student be able to do differently as a result of completing this
course?
3. What would a successful student know and be able to do two years from now as a result
of completing this course?
To get a sense of appropriate student learning outcomes for a whole academic program, we
might use Prof. Michael Zender’s concept from DAAP of the student “portrait.” In a CET&L
discussion on May 7, 2009, Zender described the questions that his program asked in developing
learning outcomes for that program:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What would a successful graduate of that program look like today?
What would a successful graduate of that program look like in the future?
What skills would that graduate need in order to excel in the 21st century?
What kinds of people would that graduate collaborate or work with?
Answers to such questions, perhaps further developed in conversations with alumni, might help a
program to develop a “portrait” of a graduate with the traits deemed necessary or desirable to
help that graduate to be successful. Within this same discussion, Marianne Lewis (CoB)
emphasized the importance of students gaining experience collaborating across college and
disciplinary lines so as to mimic the environment that students will encounter in their careers.
Steve Kroeger (CECH) further noted the value of identifying the mandates that might be
imposed by external accreditation agencies as a way to define student learning outcomes for a
program. And Joyce Malek (A&S) described the benefits of a cross-college disciplinary group
such as UC’s Composition Committee as a way to assess student learning in one program
relative to expectations in another.
Return to the Checklist
The Fundamental Identity of a Course:
It is expected that a “course” will be consistent in its targeted learning outcomes across all class
sections offered for that course each term, for as long as the course is offered. Notwithstanding
instructor variances in delivery methods, content selection minutiae, and evaluations schemes,
the fundamental identity of the “course” should be consistent across all of its class sections. If it
is your vision that a class section of this course will differ significantly in terms of learning
outcomes or pedagogical imperatives, such that this “class“ is invested with a unique identity,
then it is not appropriate for this “class” to carry the same course number, title and course
description as the primary “course.” You must create a unique course, complete with a unique
course number, title and description.
Return to the Checklist
Department Template for Assessing Your Students’ Learning, prepared by Peggy Maki for
AAC&U
Page 6 of 7
Has your department:

Collaboratively articulated department-level learning outcome statements?

Mapped where and how students progressively learn these outcomes and identified points
along the curriculum, as well as at the culmination of the program of study, when
students build upon and demonstrate these collaboratively agreed upon outcomes?

Discussed the design of the curriculum as reflected in a departmental curricular map,
focusing on (1) pedagogies or educational practices that chronologically foster desired
learning outcomes and on (2) how faculty intentionally build upon each others’ courses
and educational experiences to continue to foster students’ learning?

Oriented and chronologically acculturated students to these outcomes?

Oriented new and adjunct faculty to these outcomes?

Integrated these outcomes into syllabi so that students continue to think about and reflect
on their learning?

Created times along students’ program of study to position them to assess their learning
gains across their program of study, such as in focus groups or at the end of courses, and
used these results for departmental discussions?

Collaboratively developed and distributed criteria and standards of judgment, scoring
rubrics, to assess students’ progress towards and achievement of your department-level
outcomes and to position students to self- or peer assess?

Identified times to convene department members to analyze, interpret and use results of
assessment to identify patterns of strength and weakness in student work that lead to
discussion about and reflection on ways to improve student achievement through changes
in pedagogy, curricular and instructional design, or other educational practices?

Identified times to implement collaboratively agreed upon changes to ascertain how well
these changes improve student learning?
Other guidelines available from an AAC&U Institute, “Our Student’s Best Work”
Return to Checklist
Page 7 of 7