Feb 23, 2024  
2017-18 University Handbook 
    
2017-18 University Handbook FINAL VERSION - Closed for Revisions

Chapter 7 - Academic Programs and Curriculum


Section 1 - Academic Program Proposals

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 2 - Assessment

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 3 - Department Review

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 4 - Articulation Agreement

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 5 - Grade Review Subcommittee

 

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 6 - General Education Program: Overview of Approved Changes

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 7 was deleted

Section 8 - Reorganizing Academic Units

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

Section 9 was deleted

CHAPTER 7 ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND CURRICULUM

SECTION 1:  ACADEMIC PROGRAM PROPOSALS

(New and Revised Programs, Majors, Minors, New and Unique Course Sequences)

Departments and others wishing to submit undergraduate proposals for consideration by the Curriculum Committee or graduate proposals for consideration by the Graduate Council shall prepare the proposals in detail according to the process outlined below.  Carefully prepared proposals will enable the Curriculum Committee, Graduate Council, Common Council and the administration to review and reach a sound decision on the relative merits of the proposal.

Submit undergraduate proposals (20 copies) to the Chair of the Curriculum Committee, the Registrar, the Dean(s) of any College(s) concerned, and the Chair(s) of any department(s) that could be affected by the proposal.  Proposals requiring the approval of the UW System Administration must also be submitted to the Vice Chancellor.  Submit graduate proposals to the Graduate Council, the Dean(s) of the College(s) concerned, and the Office of Academic Affairs.

In order to assure sufficient time for consideration by the appropriate committee or council, proposals should be submitted as far in advance as possible.

NEW AND REVISED UNDERGRADUATE AND/OR GRADUATE COURSES

Proposals for new or revised undergraduate or graduate courses shall be prepared according to the Procedure for Processing a Request to Approve/Revise a Course for Undergraduate and/or Graduate Credit.  Contact the Common Council Secretary for copies of the procedures and format or go to myCommonCouncil.

NOTES:

  1. No unapproved courses shall be listed in the University Timetable unless the proposed course has been submitted to the proper committees before April 1 for the following spring semester and November 1 for the following fall semester.
  2. In the case of a slash course, the curriculum committee must have acted on the undergraduate course prior to the submission of the course proposal to the Graduate Council.

UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS AND MINORS

NEW MAJORS

Proposed new majors should be prepared using the UW System Guidelines for Academic Program Planning and Approval, found later in this Section.

REVISED MAJORS AND MINORS

Proposals to revise undergraduate majors and minors shall be prepared according to the FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF REVISIONS TO MAJOR/MINOR REQUIREMENTS.  Contact the Common Council Secretary for a copy of the format or go to myCommonCouncil.

NEW MINORS

Proposals to create new minors shall be prepared according to the FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF REVISIONS TO MAJOR/MINOR REQUIREMENTS.  Questions #3-11 are essentially the same for a new and a revised minor.  Contact the Common Council Secretary for a copy of the format or go to myCommonCouncil.

GRADUATE PROGRAMS

NEW PROGRAMS

Proposed new graduate programs should be prepared using the UW System Guidelines for Academic Program Planning and Approval, found later in this Section.

REVISED PROGRAMS

Proposals to revise graduate programs shall show the existing program, then the new program, and clearly point out the proposed revisions and rationale and justification for such revisions.  All prerequisites and courses required in the program, plus required courses outside the department (collateral courses), as well as the prerequisites to the courses required in order to complete the graduate degree should be listed.  A sample plan of study should be included.

NEW COURSES INCLUDED IN NEW OR REVISED PROGRAMS

New courses being proposed in conjunction with a new or revised program should be fully explained as though the course was being introduced independently.  In such cases, the Graduate Council will consider the course additions and/or changes first and then consider the proposed and/or revised program.

PROCEDURE IN COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

The Council will rely basically upon the written documents submitted for its determination of the rationale and justification for the proposed change; however, the requesting department shall be expected to have a representative at the meeting to answer any questions which might arise.

REFERRAL BACK TO DEPARTMENT                     

Any proposals submitted in a format different from that described above will be rejected and will be returned to the department or individual proposing the change until submitted in proper form.

GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM COURSE PROPOSALS

The General Education Program Subcommittee oversees all components of the university-wide general degree requirements.  A major function of the subcommittee is screening courses for inclusion among those that may be used to fulfill general degree requirements.  No existing or new course will be accepted automatically as fulfilling a general degree requirement.

Contact the Common Council Secretary for a copy of the format for submission of a GDR course proposal or download the format from Public Folders in Microsoft Outlook.  The format can be found by selecting Public Folders; All Public Folders; University Offices, Services, Governance; Governance & Representation; Common Council; and GDR Subcommittee.

UW SYSTEM GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM PLANNING AND APPROVAL

(Date of Issue:  January 1999)

These guidelines are designed for use by the Vice Chancellor, Dean, Department Chair and others involved in academic program planning and approval.  The full policy governing academic program planning and review is contained in ACIS-1.0, Academic Planning and Program Review.  The major focus of these guidelines is on the process for requesting and implementing new academic programs.  The guidelines describe the steps involved in this process in each of four major phases:  Request for Entitlement to Plan an Academic Program, Authorization to Implement the New Program, Implementation of the New Academic Program, and Joint Program Review.  The guidelines also provide suggested formats for use in developing the proposal for Authorization to Implement and in the Joint Program Review.

The process of requesting and receiving Authorization to Implement a new academic program is intended to be a collaborative effort between the requesting institution and the UW System Office of Academic Affairs.  A representative from the Office of Academic Affairs will serve as a member of the Program Review Committee that reviews the proposal for Authorization to Implement a New Program and also as a member of the Joint Review Committee when the program undergoes review five years after initiation.

Questions about the process outlined in this document should be addressed to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Programs at UWSP.

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REPORTING OVERVIEW

This table describes the various academic program actions that require approval or reporting. Institutions are expected to consult with each other and with UW System Administration at appropriate points in the process of developing and implementing all new academic programs.  The following sections in Guidelines for Academic Program Planning and approval describe this procedure in detail.

NOTE: All submissions should be directed to the UW System Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs.  All “I” items will be reported to the Board of Regents annually or upon request.

 

INSTITUTIONAL ACTION SYSTEM ADMIN ACTION REGENT BOARD ACTION REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
  1. Establish New Academic Programs:
     
  1. Preliminary Entitlement
A I Memo requesting Entitlement to Plan
  1. Authorization to Implement
A A Executive Summary and Program Proposal for Authorization to Implement
  1. Implementation
I I Memo stating date of Implementation
  1. Joint Review
A I Report and Recommendation
  1. Establish or Alter the Institutional Mission

A

A Written notification
  1. Extend Degree Program to a Second Institution
A I Written request
  1. Establish, Rename, or Eliminate a College/School/Dean*
A A Written notification
  1. Redirect Major/Degree Substantively
A I Written notification
  1. Establish, Rename, or Eliminate a Department
I I Written notification
  1. Establish, Rename, or Eliminate a Center or Institute**
I I Written notification
  1. Eliminate a Degree/Major/Submajor
I I Written notification
  1. Rename Major/Degree/Submajor
I I Written notification
  1. Establish Submajor or Certification Program
I I Written notification
  1. Review General Education Program
I I Report to coincide with NCA re-accreditation
  1. Report on Institutional Program Review
I I Summaries due October 1 of each year

A = Approval Required
I = Information Only

*Section 36.09(1)(gm), Wis. Stats, applies to creation of some schools or colleges.
**Only when state funds are involved initially or as a commitment for continuing the center or institute

 

NEW PROGRAM PLANNING AND APPROVAL

Board of Regents’ policy calls for joint planning of new degree programs, with formal Board approval at stipulated decision points, to ensure such planning meets the policies and principles contained in ACIS-1.0, Academic Planning and Program Review.

Formal activity in the new program planning process begins when an institution requests an Entitlement to Plan a new academic program leading to a degree.  The program development and authorization process for new majors and degree programs involves four primary phases, which are outlined below.

I.  REQUEST FOR ENTITLEMENT TO PLAN A NEW PROGRAM
  1. The institution determines the feasibility of developing and requesting a new degree program. Informal consultation with other institutions is strongly encouraged.
  2. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends a memo to the UW System Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs requesting an Entitlement to Plan a new degree program.  This memo includes a brief statement identifying the program and addressing the following issues (extensive documentation not required):
  1. Relation to institutional mission, strategic plan, goals and objectives;
  2. Projected source of resources (reallocation, external funds, request for new dollars);
  3. Need for the program;
  4. Relation to other academic programs in the UW System, the region and, if appropriate, the nation.
  1. The UW System Office of Academic Affairs circulates the request for entitlement to the Vice Chancellors of all institutions for comment.  The purpose of this review is to ensure that all institutions know about the request and to consider the potential for collaboration.  Institutions typically are asked to respond within 30 days.
  1. The institutions’ comments are forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the requesting institution and are shared with the Vice Chancellors of all the other institutions.
  2. If necessary, the UW System Office of Academic Affairs consults with institutions to determine how the proposed program fits into Systemwide program array and whether revisions need to be made to the proposal.
  1. The UW System Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs makes a decision on the request for Entitlement to Plan. S/he may consult with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs prior to making that decision.
  1. The decision may be to a) approve the Entitlement to Plan, b) return the proposal to the institution for additional work, or c) deny the request.
  2. If the UW System Office of Academic Affairs and the requesting institution are unable to reach an agreement on the disposition of the request for Entitlement to Plan, the request can be forwarded to the Chancellor and the President for resolution.
  1. Approved entitlements expire after five years if the institution takes no further actions. The UW System Office of Academic Affairs regularly updates the Entitlement to Plan list which is available upon request.
II.  AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW PROGRAM
  1. The institution develops a proposal for Authorization to Implement the entitled program (see attached suggested format). The following reviews must be included in the process of developing the proposal.  Choice of the sequence of these reviews is left to the institution.
  1. Review of the proposal by a three-person Program Review Committee consisting of at least two representatives of the institution (one of whom should represent the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) and a representative of the UW System Office of Academic Affairs.  The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs appoints the institutional representatives, and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs appoints the System representative.  The Vice Chancellor’s representative typically convenes the Committee.  The role of the UW System representative is to work with the institutional representatives to ensure that the final proposal addresses the kinds of issues that might concern the Board of Regents.
  2. Review of the proposal by at least two consultants from outside the proposing institution(s).
  3. Review of the proposal by the appropriate institutional governance bodies.
  1. When the above reviews are completed, the Program Review Committee recommends to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs whether the academic program should be implemented.  If the Committee recommends implementation and the Vice Chancellor agrees, the Committee prepares an Executive Summary to be submitted to the Board of Regents.  The Vice Chancellor then submits the complete proposal and the Executive Summary to the UW System Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs.
  2. The Board of Regents acts on the proposal for Authorization to Implement the program.
III.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAM
  1. The institution is responsible for implementation.  However, the Authorization to Implement expires five years from the date of Board approval of the Authorization if the institution takes no further action.
  2. The Vice Chancellor notifies the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs in writing when the program is actually implemented.
IV.  JOINT PROGRAM REVIEW
  1. The institution and UW System Administration undertake a Joint Review approximately five years after implementation of the program.
  2. The UW System Office of Academic Affairs notifies the institution that the program is due for the Joint Review.  That notification includes a copy of the original Executive Summary and establishes a target date for completion of the review.  The general purposes of this review, which are outlined in the notification memo, are to:
  • Determine whether the goals and objectives, as originally stated in the program proposal, were met.  If the goals and objectives were not met, determine the reasons why.
  • Ascertain how the program is related to other programs offered by the institution and how important it is to the institution’s program array.
  • Assess the level of quality the program has attained since its implementation.
  • Determine the resource implications of continuing this program.
  1. The institution conducts an internal review of the program.  The review process has three components:
  1. The department(s) and faculty specifically concerned with implementation of the program complete a self-study.  The institution will incorporate into its review additional college-, department-, and field-specific items appropriate for that program.  See attached sample format for Joint Reviews.
  2. At least two (2) outside consultants evaluate the program.
  3. A Joint Review Committee consisting of the members of the original Program Review Committee (see A.1. under Authorization to Implement) reviews the self-study report and all related documents, including the external evaluations.  If the original members of this committee are not available, replacements will be named by the respective appointing officers.
  1. The Joint Review Committee forwards its findings and recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  The Vice Chancellor then makes a recommendation to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs on the continuation, modification or discontinuation of the program, forwarding the Joint Review Committee’s report and the outside consultants’ evaluations with his/her recommendation.
  2. The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs notifies the institution of his/her decision regarding the program.
  3. If the decision is to continue the program, that program enters the normal institutional review cycle.
SAMPLE FORMAT:  AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAM

While you do not need to follow this format exactly, you do need to ensure that the information requested in the sample is contained in your proposal.

  1. PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION

1.1     Title of Proposed Program

1.2     Department or Functional Equivalent

1.3     College, School, or Functional Equivalent

1.4     Timetable for Initiation

  1. CONTEXT

2.1     History of Program:  Provide a brief chronological record of any program(s) from which the proposed program is developed (e.g., submajor currently available under existing program).

2.2     Instructional Setting of Program:  Describe the relationship of the proposed program to existing academic programs. As appropriate, describe interdepartmental or intercollegiate structures.

2.3     Relation to Mission Statement and Academic Plan:  Describe how the proposed program relates to the mission and academic plan of the institution.

  1. NEED

3.1     Comparable Programs in Wisconsin:  Identify similar programs in the state.  Compare these programs to the proposed program.

3.2     Comparable Program Outside Wisconsin:  Identify similar programs in neighboring states available to Wisconsin residents.  Compare these programs to the proposed program.  (Special emphasis should be placed on                        opportunities available under the reciprocity agreement with Minnesota institutions.)

3.3     Regional, State and National Needs:  Discuss estimated future employment opportunities for graduates of this program.  Compare the estimated need for graduates with the estimated number of graduates from this program            and existing programs identified in 3.1 and 3.2 above.  Where appropriate, provide documentation by citing data from organizations such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and/or professional associations.  Describe any                  special need for this program expressed by state agencies, industry, research centers, or other educational institutions.  Provide documentation, including citations of relevant state regulations or employer policy.

3.4     Student Demand–Future Enrollment:  Provide projections for anticipated enrollment and number of degrees to be granted for each of the first five years.

3.5     Collaborative or Alternative Program Exploration:  Discuss the possibility of offering the proposed, or an equivalent, program collaboratively with another institution, or as a submajor in conjunction with some existing                      program.

  1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

4.1     Objectives:  Provide a brief narrative description of the program.  List the central academic objectives of the program to be used in evaluating its future success.

4.2     Curriculum:  Discuss the proposed sequence of courses or provide a course matrix for the program, clearly indicating any new courses proposed.  Note prerequisite and required courses within and outside the sponsoring                  department.  Describe program entrance requirements, (e.g. completion of a number of credits, minimum GPA or GRE score).  Also describe all degree completion requirements (e.g. portfolio, theses, oral exams, foreign                  language proficiency, capstone seminar, senior project internship).  For graduate programs, discuss the mix of graduate-only and undergraduate/graduate courses.  Describe the proposed curriculum in terms of credits-to-                degree and reasonable timelines for degree completion.

4.3     Interrelationship with Other Curricula:  Briefly describe how the new program will support and/or be supported by other institutional programs.  Discuss any relationships with the general education program.

4.4     Method of Assessment or Evaluation:  Outline a general plan for the ongoing evaluation of program success for each of the academic objectives listed above, including plans for quantitative or qualitative indicators and                      assessment of student learning.  Indicate who will conduct the evaluation and how often it will occur.

4.5     Accreditation Requirement:  If program-specific accreditation is available for the proposed program, contrast the impact on curriculum, total program costs and job opportunities for graduates of an accredited versus a non-              accredited program.

4.6     Strengths or Unique Features:  Describe any special strengths or unique features offered by the proposed program.

4.7     Career Advising:  Describe the career advisory services directly related and available to students in the program.

4.8     Outreach (if applicable):  Outline credit and noncredit outreach functions, including public service, provided by this academic program.

4.9     Integration of Technology:  Briefly describe how technology will be integrated into the curriculum.

4.10    Distance Education (if applicable):  Discuss plans for distance education and/or alternative delivery methods, including potential collaboration with other UW System institutions.

  1. PERSONNEL

5.1     Faculty Participating Directly in the Program:  List present faculty members who will directly participate in the proposed program as instructors and/or student advisors and append an abbreviated curriculum vitae for each of            these core faculty members.

5.2     Advisory Faculty:  List faculty members (other than those listed for 5. 1) who will be involved in the program in a related or advisory capacity.  Particularly for faculty members in other departments or colleges, outline the                extent of their involvement and plans for continued involvement.

5.3     Additional Faculty Requirements:  Indicate the number, if any, of new faculty members (FTE) required to initiate the program, and project long-range needs for new faculty (with tentative timetable).  Indicate whether new                positions are required or can be reallocated from elsewhere within the institution.  Indicate the source for reallocation.

5.4     Academic Staff:  List current instructional and non-instructional academic staff members who would be assigned to the proposed program.  Indicate the number, if any, of new academic staff required to initiate the program,              and project long range needs for new academic staff (with tentative timetable). Indicate whether new positions are required or can be reallocated from elsewhere within the institution. Indicate the source for reallocation.

5.5     University Staff:  Provide information requested in 5.4 for university staff.

  1. ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES

6.1     Library Resources:  Describe and evaluate current library resources necessary for the proposed program.  Indicate additional library resources needed, the estimated cost, and the source for resources.

6.2     Additional Support Resources:  Describe and evaluate special resources (computers, unique laboratories, audio-visual and other equipment, access to data bases, etc.) currently available to the proposed program.  Indicate              how additional special resources needed, if any, will be provided.

  1. FACILITIES - EQUIPMENT

7.1     Capital Resources–Existing Facilities and Capital Equipment:  List and evaluate facilities and capital equipment currently available to the proposed program.

7.2     Capital Budget Needs–Additional Facilities Required:  List and describe facilities (special classrooms, laboratories, additional space, minor construction) needed to begin or sustain the proposed program.  Provide an estimate            of costs.  Discuss impact upon the program if these resources are not provided through new state appropriations.  Discuss expectations for extramural funding.  If applicable, discuss plans for waste management and                      disposal.

7.3     Clinical Facilities:  For health science programs or programs making clinical placements, describe the laboratories and/or agencies to be used for clinical instruction.  Append supporting statements indicating that these                      facilities will be available.

  1. FINANCE

8.1     Operating Budget Requirements:  Describe funding requirements and, using the attached sample budget format as a model, show the total budgetary allocation required to implement this program and to fund it for the first            three years.

8.2     Operating Budget–S&E Requirements:  Describe supplies and expense needs for the requested program.  Include information on funding sources (reallocation, private funding).  If applicable, discuss plans for waste                        management and disposal.

8.3     Operating Budget Reallocation:  Most, if not all, of the funding requirements outlined above will be met by reallocation of base resources.  Indicate that you are prepared to reallocate the necessary resources.  If the                        necessary resources are not immediately available, explain contingency plans (phase-in of the program; delay in starting the program until additional funds can be found; delay until external fund-raising is successful).

8.4     Extramural Research Support:  Indicate sources and amounts of extramural funding support expected to be available for research related to the proposed program.  Provide documentation supporting the basis of this                      expectation.

SAMPLE SUMMARY:  ESTIMATED COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR PROPOSED PROGRAM

Personnel Costs

  First Year Second Year Third Year
  Dollars/FTE Dollars/FTE Dollars/FTE
Faculty/Academic Staff      
Graduate Assistants      
University Staff      
SUBTOTAL      

 

Non-Personnel Costs

  Dollars Dollars Dollars
Supplies and Expenses      
Capital Equipment      
Library Resources      
Computing Resources      
Other (Define)      
SUBTOTAL      

 

Total Costs for Program

TOTAL COST      

 

Resources

  Dollars Dollars Dollars
Reallocation      
Gifts and Grants      
Other (Define)      
TOTAL RESOURCES      

 

TRANSMITTAL REQUEST:  AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAM

Before a proposed program can be brought before the Board of Regents for consideration, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should submit a letter to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs requesting the program’s submission to the Board.  This request should have appended all supporting documentation used in preparing the Executive Summary for the Board.  Following Regent approval, this material will be the official record of this new program and will remain on file at the Office of Academic Affairs until completion of the program’s joint five-year review.

Please refer to the checklist below when preparing the addenda to the request:

  • Complete and final copy of the Authorization to Implement (Sample format included in the Guidelines for Academic Program Planning and Review);
  • Complete and final copy of the Executive Summary;
  • Signed reports from at least two outside consultants;
  • Indication of approval by the appropriate institutional governance bodies.
SAMPLE FORMAT:  JOINT REVIEW SELF-STUDY

While you do not need to follow this format exactly, you do need to ensure that the information identified in the sample is contained in your self-study.

  1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

1.1     Goals and Objectives:  Provide a statement of the objectives and goals of the program and describe any changes that have occurred since the program was implemented.  In an appendix, attach copies of any printed                        program information, such as catalog text, brochures, and other pertinent information describing the program.

1.2     Context:  Describe the context for the program, including its relationship to the University’s mission and its long-range plans, and to other academic programs within the UW System.  Also compare it to similar types of                    programs in the region and nation.

1.3     Need:  Discuss what needs are being met by this program and whether these needs could be met more effectively through collaboration with other programs in the UW System.  If so, discuss how collaboration might occur.

  1. PERSONNEL

2.1     Faculty:  Discuss any changes in the faculty participating directly in the core and elective courses.  Indicate to what extent new faculty have been recruited.  Append short vitae for the core faculty members along with a list              of names and departments of other faculty associated with the program.

2.2     Administrative Structure:  Describe the current administrative structure for the program including the relationship between program faculty and their areas of concentration within the program.  Also describe the relationship            and interaction among the program faculty who are from different departments and different schools.

  1. STUDENTS

3.1     Enrollment Trends:  Review, verify, and analyze the trends pertaining to degree program enrollment and degree recipients contained in the data provided by UW System Administration.

3.2     Degree Recipients:  Provide information about the post-baccalaureate employment or graduate training of degree recipients.

3.3     Projected Enrollment:  Discuss the potential for future enrollment in the program as related to past enrollment and existing resources.  In addition, provide a chart showing projected enrollments and graduates.

  1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

4.1     Curriculum:  Provide any changes in the initial list of foundation and core courses for the program, and a sample sequence of courses taken by the majority of students in the program.  Include additional sequences if there              are multiple areas of specialization within the program.

4.2     Assessment:  Using the assessment plan developed for the program in the proposal for Authorization to Implement, evaluate the program’s success in meeting the stated objectives, including assessment of student learning.

4.3     Accreditation:  If specialized accreditation is available for this program, discuss the rationale of applying or not applying, the impact of accreditation standards upon the curriculum, and the impact of accreditation standards              on the total program costs.

4.4     Concerns:  Describe any problems that the program has faced/is facing and provide recommendations for resolving them.

  1. ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES

5.1     On-going Support: Describe the physical facilities, capital equipment library resources and supplies that sustain the program.

5.2     Additional Support:  Discuss any special programs, faculty, or outreach activities designed to enhance the program.

  1. FINANCE

6.1     Program Cost:  Show program cost-per-credit and per-degree.  Provide comparisons with similar programs.

6.2     Budget Requirements:  Discuss whether the current operating budget is adequate to assure program quality. If additional support is needed to sustain program quality, indicate the areas affected and the amount and source            of future funding for these areas.

6.3     Capital Requirements:  Discuss any capital budget expenditures necessary to sustain the program and provide an estimate of costs.

  1. SUMMARY

7.1     Summary Evaluation:  Summarize the program’s overall effectiveness with respect to the original expectations. Indicate any observed obstacles to the fulfillment of the original objectives and the measures taken to                          overcome those obstacles. Describe any unanticipated contributions of the program to the teaching, research, or outreach mission of other departments at your institution or the university as a whole.

7.2     Recommendations:  Recommend action for continuation with the final review process for this program, for revision of the program and later final review, or for discontinuance of the program.

 

SECTION 2:  ASSESSMENT

UWSP will assess student learning within both the General Education Program and the various department-level academic programs.  The purpose of assessment is to ensure the continuous improvement of student learning by informing all choices related to the curricular and instructional changes, programs, and policies that contribute to student success.  In this way, assessment is intended to provide the foundation for academic planning and decision making.

THE ASSESSMENT PLAN

The evaluation of student learning will move beyond the purely anecdotal and personal experiences of individual faculty or departments to study the undergraduate experience as a whole.  In this way, assessment will provide information to use in decision making related to the continuous improvement of teaching and learning, department review, and other key institutional outcomes.  Intentional coordination of efforts is the key to the assessment plan, with each effort centered on a model of continuous improvement with student learning as the focus.  Program-level assessment will be carried out by academic departments that submit reports to the Assessment Subcommittee; the assessment of general education will be the responsibility of the General Education Committee; and institutional-level assessment (which will inform the work of both the Assessment Subcommittee and the General Education Committee) will be administered by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.

The assessment of undergraduate programs at UWSP will have four components:

  1. an analysis of new student attributes and prior experiences;
  2. an evaluation of learning within the general education curriculum
  3. an evaluation of learning within department-level academic programs; and
  4. institutional-level measures, including surveys of student perceptions and a value-added measurement of student learning from the freshman to senior years.

ANALYSIS OF NEW STUDENT ABILITIES

The knowledge, skills and perspectives outlined previously need to be analyzed first among our new students, primarily the incoming freshmen.  The regent-mandated placement tests of verbal and quantitative skills already help place students in the most appropriate English, math and foreign language courses as well as identify students in need of remedial work.  The placement test results are integrated as a second component of a freshman profile in the larger assessment program.  Finally, an inventory administered to new freshmen helps identify our new students’ values and perspectives.  These components help us understand freshman knowledge, skills and perspectives.

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

The assessment of student learning in the General Education curriculum will be the responsibility of the General Education Committee.  Assessment within the General Education Program is intended to be a formal process of inquiry into student learning.  More than simply an exercise in documenting the level of student achievement within the program, assessment is an exploration of how and why students learn, or fail to learn, within a particular curricular and pedagogical context.  It explores both the outcomes that students achieve as well as the processes through which they learn.  In this way, assessment should be viewed as an open-ended scholarly activity, a collaborative action research project aimed at the improvement of teaching and learning.  (For a detailed explanation of the theory underpinning this approach to assessment, see Peggy Maki, Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment Across the Institution, Second Edition (2010), 123-153.)

The evaluation of student learning in the General Education curriculum will be the responsibility of the General Education Committee (GEC).  The role of the committee in this regard shall be to:

  1. recommend policies and procedures for the General Education assessment to the Common Council;
  2. facilitate the process by which General Education assessment data is gathered, evaluated, and communicated;
  1. assist departments and faculty to identify, develop and utilize course-level assessment measures;
  2. identify, develop, and utilize institutional level measures in concert with the Assessment Subcommittee and the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness;
  1. make recommendations to Common Council regarding improvements to the General Educational Program;
  2. support instructional development and curricular improvements;
  3. review and update the General Education assessment process regularly.

Assessment of student learning within the General Education curriculum will take place on a five-year cycle.  The first four years of the cycle will be focused on courses in the four levels of the curriculum.  In addition, during each of the first four years, information will be gathered related to one of the four General Education Program Outcomes from courses in the Investigation Level.  Based on these results, the fifth year of the Assessment Cycle will be devoted to a comprehensive review of the General Education Program and Assessment Plan.

Year 1:
  • Foundation-Level Courses (First Year Seminar, Written and Oral Communication, Quantitative Literacy, and Wellness)
  • Program Outcome 1 (Demonstrate critical thinking, quantitative and communication skill necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing global society)
Year 2:
  • Investigation-Level Courses (Arts, Humanities, Historical Perspectives, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences)
  • Program Outcome 2 (Demonstrate broad knowledge of the physical, social, and cultural worlds as well as the methods by which this knowledge is produced.
Year 3:
  • Cultural and Environmental Awareness-Level Courses (Global Awareness, U.S. Diversity, and Environmental Responsibility)
  • Program Outcome 3 (Recognize that responsible global citizenship involves personal accountability, social equity, and environmental sustainability)
Year 4:
  • Integration-Level Courses (Interdisciplinary Studies, Experiential Learning, Communication in the Major, and Capstone Experience in the Major)
  • Program Outcome 4 (Apply their knowledge and skills, working in the interdisciplinary ways to solve problems)
Year 5:
  • Comprehensive Review of General Education Program and Assessment Plan

Evidence of student achievement will be collected along three dimensions: (a) course-based measurements for each GEP level utilizing course portfolios compiled by instructors, (b) institutional-level measurements conducted through periodic standardized tests and surveys administered by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness and (c) course-based measurements for each of the four GE Program Outcomes, potentially utilizing course portfolios and departmental assessment. Each year, this information will be reviewed and evaluated by faculty learning communities under the direction of the GEC, the Director of General Education, and the Assessment Coordinator. In turn, the GEC will annually report these results and its recommendations for improving the General Education Program to the Common Council, the Provost, the Deans, and others.

Course-Based Measurements

The GEC will regularly gather course-level information on student learning through the collection of course portfolios. A course portfolio is a selection of materials from a given course-including the syllabus and relevant examples of student work-along with reflective statements written by the instructor that explore how the course structures and assessment strategies contributed to student learning. Faculty members teaching designated General Education courses will be required to prepare a course portfolio according to the five-year cycle noted above. (Note: the GEC will consult with departments offering multiple sections of the same GEP course to establish a plan for assessment; such a plan will specify a subset of instructors/sections who will submit course portfolios.) Each course portfolio will contain the following elements:

  1. Course Information:
  1. A syllabus, including an explanation of how the intended learning outcomes of the course align with those of the General Education Program category.
  2. A brief narrative describing how the relevant General Education learning outcomes will be met by students through course experiences, assignments, and/or activities.
  1. Assessment Information:
  1. A discipline-appropriate evaluation of student attainment of at least one learning outcome, including a brief explanation of how student learning was assessed. (Note: Although courses should be designed to meet all the approved learning outcomes in a particular category, the actual assessment can and should focus on a smaller subset of these outcomes.)
  2. Examples of student work related to the evaluation above showing a range of student achievement.
  3. The specific criteria or rubric that was used to evaluate student work.
  4. Results of any other feedback mechanisms used in the course that explore student perceptions of course assignments and their alignment with the general education learning outcomes.
  5. A brief statement explaining how assessment results will be used to improve learning in the course in the future.
The General Education Assessment Process

The annual process of evaluating student learning within the General Education curriculum will have the following steps:

  1. At the beginning of each academic year, the GEC will establish faculty learning communities for each area of the curriculum being assessed during that year. Each faculty learning community will include 4-6 faculty members teaching courses in the categories under review and includes the Assessment Coordinator and a member of the GEC representing the particular GEP category. The faculty learning community will coordinate with faculty across campus to ensure the body of course portfolios will provide adequate evidence of student learning for each of the learning outcomes in the GEP category.
  2. Instructors teaching courses in areas under review in the fall semester will prepare and submit course portfolios to the Assessment Coordinator by February 1
  3. Each faculty learning community will review course portfolios provided by the Assessment Coordinator and provide feedback to instructors. This feedback will only be shared with the instructor.
  4. The Assessment Coordinator will collaborate with the faculty learning communities to aggregate findings from the course portfolios, along with data from the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, and prepare a report for the General Education Committee by October 1. No information identifying instructors, students or specific courses shall be included in the report.
  5. The GEC will report to the Common Council on its assessment of student learning, including any recommendations to improve the curriculum. The report may also recommend further action research projects to investigate particular aspects of student learning or to explore the impact of particular changes to the curriculum.  The report must be submitted to the Common Council by December 1. This report will be shared with the Provost, the Deans, and the department chairs. In addition, it will be posted online to be available to the campus community and others.
Institutional-Level Measurements

The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness will regularly administer standardized tests and student surveys in an effort to measure student learning and experiences on campus. The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness will work with the GEC, the Director of General Education, and the Assessment Coordinator to share results that are applicable and useful for assessment within the General Education Program. These tests will include those institutional-level assessments required for external accountability or reporting.

Given that such measurements provide an institutional snapshot of student learning; the results will be utilized by the GEC in concert with other data gathered through course-based assessment.

The Use of Assessment Results

Assessment results are intended for two purposes: 1) to provide feedback to individual instructors to assist in their efforts to improve student learning within their courses; and 2) to make judgments about the effectiveness of the General Education Program and to inform recommendations for its improvement. To achieve these aims, assessment results will be shared in the following manner:

  1. Each instructor submitting a course portfolio will receive individual feedback from the faculty learning community, including an evaluation of the assessment method utilized in the course and recommendations for the improvement of student learning. This evaluation will include the rubric used by the faculty learning community in forming its opinions. This information will be provided only to the instructors themselves and will not be shared with departments, Deans, the Provost, or the GEC.
  2. Working in concert with the faculty learning communities, the Assessment Coordinator will compile reports on student learning for the GEC, removing references to specific courses and instructors. The GEC’s final report will contain:
  1. A summary of student attainment of the learning outcomes in the relevant General Education areas.
  2. Recommendations based on these assessment results for the improvement of the General Education curriculum. These recommendations may include proposals for further action research projects related to particular courses, GEP categories, GE Program Outcomes, or specific groups of students.
  1. The GEC will report annually to the Common Council sharing its evaluation and recommendations with the Provost, the Deans, and the department chairs. The report will also be posted online to be available to the campus community and others.
  2. In conjunction with the Director of General Education and the Assessment Coordinator, the GEC will work with various units on campus in order to provide professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. In this manner, the GEC will help to “close the loop” by allowing assessment of student learning lead to curricular and pedagogical improvements. Such professional development opportunities might include:
  1. Workshops on effective assessment of student learning in the General Education curriculum.
  2. Instructional development necessitated by Common Council-approved changes to the curriculum or learning outcomes.
  3. Action research projects intended to provide further information on student learning within the curriculum.

DEPARTMENT-LEVEL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Each department* has the responsibility to assess student learning within its undergraduate and graduate programs and to analyze and use the results to modify the program outcomes or curriculum where necessary to ensure the continuous improvement of student learning.

*Here, “department” is defined to include departments, divisions, and schools depending on the college involved, or in some cases, interdisciplinary programs.  In the case of the College of Natural Resources, “department” refers to the entire college excluding the Department of Paper Science and Engineering.

Departments shall determine the methods of assessment and the instruments to be used that best meet their needs.  These must provide information that can be used to identify curricular and instructional strengths and weaknesses.

Oversight of department-level program assessment will be the responsibility of the Assessment Subcommittee, a permanent subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC).  The role of the subcommittee will be to:

  1. develop the policies and procedures for academic program assessment;
  2. assist departments in selecting and developing appropriate assessment techniques, including direct measures;
  3. in concert with the general education committee and the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness select, develop, and administer institutional level assessment procedures and instruments consonant with UWSP’s Mission;
  4. oversee compilation of department assessment data;
  5. assist departments as they update and review their assessment efforts;
  6. address deficiencies in the assessment process; and
  7. promote assessment through activities such as sponsoring workshops and forums, developing a web-site, publicizing assessment activities and results, and meeting with administrators.

The subcommittee will NOT

  1. conduct departments reviews;
  2. evaluate departments or courses;
  3. assess the worth of departments or programs on the basis of assessment data submitted.

The Department-Level Program Assessment Process

Each department will keep on file with the Assessment Subcommittee a current five­ year Assessment Plan denoting year-by-year how the department will gather and utilize assessment information.  The plan should include the program learning outcomes for each major within the department; a curriculum map illustrating how courses within the major align with these outcomes; and an explanation of the assessment techniques or strategies that will be used to evaluate student learning within the program.

In addition, each department will be required to report to the Assessment Subcommittee on its evaluation of student learning every five years according to the “Reporting Cycle for Assessment and Department Review” drafted by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Teaching, Learning, and Strategic Planning and approved by the AAC. This reporting of assessment results is intended to be a collegial and formative process and will have the following steps:

  1. The department will evaluate student learning in a written assessment report using the format described below. (During years in which the entire department is under review, this assessment report will be included in the larger Department Self-Study Report. See UWSP Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 3.) The department must send copies of the assessment report as an electronic file to the chair of the Assessment Subcommittee, who will then forward the report to the appropriate dean and the provost.
  2. Upon receipt of the report, the chair of the Assessment Subcommittee will coordinate with the department to schedule an oral presentation of its findings. The appropriate dean, the vice chancellor for Academic Affairs, and members of the campus community in general will be invited to attend the presentation. Each department will present its assessment report to the Assessment Subcommittee using a format of its choosing. Power point presentations are welcome, but not required. This oral presentation is intended to:
  1. provide the department with immediate feedback from the Assessment Subcommittee, and
  2. encourage an open, frank discussion regarding assessment and greater awareness of its role in the improvement of student learning at UWSP.
  1. Following the oral presentation, the Assessment Subcommittee will provide the department with written feedback of its assessment report outlining the subcommittee’s conclusions and recommendations. This feedback will include the rubric used by the subcommittee in forming its opinions. This feedback will be delivered only to the department.

Department assessment reports are intended to be campus resources and will be available to anyone who requests them.  The Assessment Subcommittee is the custodian of all department assessment reports, and the reports, along with the department assessment plans, will be maintained in the Common Council files.

Responses To Delinquent Assessment Reports

Because each department assessment Report is intended to provide the foundation for decision making within the unit, it is important that the reports be completed in a timely fashion.  When a department fails to complete its Assessment Report according to the “Reporting Cycle for Assessment and Department Review,” the provost will hold all staffing and budgeting decisions for the delinquent department in abeyance.  Extenuating circumstances can relax this policy, at the discretion of the provost, if they are communicated by the dean to the provost and Assessment Subcommittee.

Content of the Assessment Report

Each department is expected to submit an assessment report with the following sections addressed. An updated assessment plan for the next five-year assessment cycle can accompany the assessment report or be submitted to the Assessment Subcommittee by the end of the academic year in which the report is submitted.

  1. Departmental Mission: Identify the department’s mission, vision, values and/or goals.
  2. Brief Description of Departmental Improvements I Changes: Identify and describe specific changes that have been made (e.g. to curriculum, assessment methods, etc.), based on the previous assessment report.
  3. Program Learning Outcomes: Include the program learning outcomes of the department, specifically indicating the knowledge, skills, and attitudes students will develop.
  4. National/Professional Standards: Include existing national or professional standards pertaining to the academic program, if these exist, and indicate how the department’s program learning outcomes align with these.
  5. New/Updated Curriculum Map: Include the departmental curriculum “map” depicting the ways in which courses, activities and requirements support the program learning outcomes.
  6.  Assessment Strategies/Measures/Techniques/Methods: Include brief descriptions of assessment methods used in the department to assess student learning. Examples of assessment methods include exams, portfolios, pre- and post-­ tests, direct observation of performance, surveys (current students, alumni, employers), focus groups, and national exams.
  7.  Assessment Results/Findings/Interpretation: Describe specifically what the assessment methods reveal about student learning in the context of the stated program learning outcomes.
  8.  Dissemination of Findings: Describe how the findings of the departmental assessment work will be disseminated, to whom, and for what purpose.
  9. Implications: Describe how results will be used by the department to enhance student learning, including changes to learning outcomes and/or curriculum.
  10. Reflections on the Department Assessment Process: Discuss the strengths and challenges of this process including any recommendations for the institutional assessment procedures.

INSTITUTIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Institutional-level measures (where the university is the “unit of analysis”) will be an essential component of the assessment program at UWSP in that they can supplement other measures of student learning and provide some triangulation of data.

The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness administers standardized instruments and student engagement surveys, among others that are required for assessing institutional performance or improvement activities. Institutional-level measures can be mapped to university outcomes (for example, general education learning outcomes}, which increases potential applications of the institutional data and maximizes resources.

The university will use standardized testing of freshman and seniors at regular intervals to provide a “value-added” measurement of student learning, particularly in the domains of critical thinking and writing. The measurement of these domains fulfills external requirements for accountability and also can contribute to the assessment of general education. To accomplish the latter, the standardized measures can be mapped to the general education program learning outcomes related to reading, critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness will disseminate results and collaborate with the General Education Committee on the interpretation of the data for use in their assessment of general education.

Additionally, UWSP will participate at regular intervals in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) of freshmen and seniors. This, too, is used partially to fulfill requirements for accountability, and has the potential to inform the assessment of student learning. For example, items from NSSE can be mapped to the general education learning outcomes to provide additional measures of progress and evidence of outcome achievement.

EVALUATING THE ASSESSMENT PLAN

Evaluation of the assessment plan outlined above is a task of both the General Education Committee and the Assessment Subcommittee.  This evaluation will be ongoing, and faculty members have the right at any time to convey concerns and suggestions to both committees. In addition, a formal and complete evaluation of General Education assessment and department-level program assessment will be scheduled every five years, according to a schedule determined by the General Education Committee and the Assessment Subcommittee, respectively.

 

SECTION 3:  DEPARTMENT REVIEW

The effective evaluation of student learning within department program(s) should provide the foundation for decision making within a department, serving to identify strengths and challenges, inform requests for additional resources (such as FTE positions; classroom, lab space, and other facilities; library material, or computing equipment), and guide planning efforts.  Consequently, the process of department review will build upon the on-going program assessment process

Department review will be an integral part of faculty governance through the Department Review Subcommittee (DRS), a permanent subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) responsible for conducting all local department* reviews.  The purposes of department reviews are 1) to provide each department a formal mechanism to evaluate and communicate to appropriate decision makers the department’s strengths, challenges and needs; 2) to garner collegial support and perspective for meeting the department’s needs; and 3) to evoke a commitment from administration concerning continuation of the department’s program(s) and/or intent to address the identified needs.  The goal will be to review the programs within each department every ten years according to the “Reporting Cycle for Assessment and Department Review” drafted by the associate vice chancellor for teaching, learning and academic programs and approved by the AAC.

*Here, “department” is defined to include departments, divisions, and schools depending on the college involved, or in some cases, interdisciplinary programs.  In the case of the College of Natural Resources, “department” refers to the entire college excluding the Department of Paper Science and Engineering

THE DEPARTMENT REVIEW PROCESS

Department review is intended to be a collegial and formative process that will take place in the following steps:

  1. The faculty and staff of the department under review engage in critical analysis of the department’s activities.  This “self-study” is an evaluation of the department’s activities, strengths, challenges and needs.  The department communicates its findings in a written Self-Study Report, using the format described below.  The department must send copies of the Self-Study Report as an electronic file to its dean, the provost, the chair of the DRS, and the chair of the Assessment Subcommittee.
  2. The department prepares a list of five candidates from other institutions who have credentials sufficient for a tenured appointment in the department to review the Self-Study Report and conduct a site visit to evaluate the department.  The dean, in consultation with the provost, will select at least two of these five candidates to comprise the Site Visit Team.  One of the Site Visit Team members must be from a UW System Institution and one must be from outside of the UW System.  The dean will formally invite the team to campus, arrange travel, and facilitate an appropriate honorarium.  Travel costs and honoraria will be paid by the provost’s office.
  3. The department sends the Self-Study Report to the approved Site Visit Team members and, in consultation with the dean, will arrange a schedule for a one- or two-day site visit.  The Site Visit Team will be given at least the following instructions:
  1. They are to review the Self-Study Report document carefully before the site visit.  They may use any other sources of information the deem appropriate and collegial in their review of the department; their final report must list all sources used in the review, including names of individuals with whom the team has materially conferred.
  2. Their goal is to help the department improve its programs and its academic stature.  They are specifically to evaluate the department’s efficiencies in discharging its stated mission, the currency of the curricula for departmental programs, and the appropriateness of the scholarship and service of the personnel.
  3. While on campus, the will meet with appropriate administrators, as requested by the dean.  They must submit a single written report to the dean that evaluates the department’s strengths and weaknesses and its ability to meet its mission.  The report should make specific recommendations to campus decision makers concerning ongoing support to the department.
  4. The Site Visit Team should orally report their preliminary findings to the department before leaving campus.  The written report is to be submitted within two weeks of concluding the site visit.
  1. Upon receipt of the report, the dean will immediately forward copies to the department and the DRS.  The department will write a response to the Site Visit Team’s report.  The departmental response may include corrections of fact, rebuttals to conclusions, or simple concurrence and elaborations.  The deans will also comment on the department’s Self-Study Report and the Site Visit Team report.  Both the departmental response and the dean’s comments must be submitted to the DRS within two weeks of receipt of the Site Visit Team report.
  2. The DRS will review the Departmental Self-Study Report, the report of the Site Visit Team, the department response, and the dean’s comments and write an evaluation that includes its recommendations to the department and the administration.  The evaluation should also address the quality of the faculty, the curriculum, students, library and other educational resources and facilities, and the academic reputation of the program among its peers.  The committee will compile this material together into a single Summary Report to be submitted to the department, the dean, and the provost.
  3. A meeting of the provost, the dean, department chair, and chair of the DRS will be the final formal discussion of the DRS Summary Report.  The provost will then provide a written comment on the department review, to be appended to the DRS Summary Report.  The dean will have the option of appending a second response to the Summary Report as well.
  4. The DRS will then forward the final Summary Report to the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC).  The AAC will verify that all procedures of this section have been properly followed and the committee minutes will specifically note any delinquencies or irregularities in the review.  Following acceptance by the Common Council of the AAC minutes, the provost will write a second response to the departmental review, which will include a final decision regarding the continued support of the department and each degree program offered under the department’s auspices.  This will conclude the review of the department.

USES OF DEPARTMENT REVIEW

Department review is intended to provide the primary source of information for administrative decisions regarding the department.  All decisions related to structure, budget, and personnel must specifically reference the most recent report.  In only rare cases is a decision sufficiently exigent to warrant proceeding without a current department review.  A department review is current if the review was completed within the preceding ten years.  The reports are intended to be campus resources and will be available to anyone who requests them.  The DRS is the custodian of the reports and the reports will be maintained in the Common Council files.

RESPONSES TO DELINQUENT REVIEWS

The department review reports are important planning documents that inform decisions throughout the campus.  It is therefore important that the reviews and reporting be completed in a timely fashion.  When a department fails to complete its self-study according to the “Reporting Cycle for Assessment and Department Review,” it makes such decision making difficult.  Therefore, the provost will hold all staffing and budgeting decisions for the delinquent department in abeyance.  Extenuating circumstances can relax this policy, at the discretion of the provost, if they are communicated by the dean to the provost and DRS.

THE UWSP DEPARTMENT REVIEW SELF-STUDY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

As a component of the department review process, each department’s self-study should consist of the following sections.  Departments that undergo professional accreditation may use their most recent accreditation self-studies with the agency reports as the basis for their Self-Study Reports.  The department must augment the accreditation report to include the content of this section.  Questions regarding completeness of each response should be directed to the chair of the UWSP Department Review Subcommittee.

The Narrative.  In this section, the department under review presents information addressing the following areas. As appropriate, appendices I-IV may also be referenced in this section. Page lengths are strictly enforced.

  1. Overview of department mission (1/2 page)
  • The mission and values statement(s) of the department, if such statements have been formally adopted by the department
  • A statement explaining how the department advances the mission and values of the college and the university
  1. Overview of major achievements and relevant trends over the last 10 years (2-3 pages)
  • Review of successes in accomplishing the goals identified in the previous department review
  • A discussion of relevant trends not anticipated or discussed in previous department review (e.g., impact of GEP implementation)
  • Summary of assessment results (from Appendix III below) and their implications for the department.
  1. Discussion of the most important strengths and challenges related to the following categories:  (5-6 pages)
  • The quality of the faculty
  • The adequacy of the curriculum (including information about Diversity Education and if applicable, General Education, Graduate education, and online offerings)
  • The success of the students before and after graduation
  • The structure and effectiveness of academic advising
  • The adequacy of physical facilities (classroom or lab space, equipment, library resources, etc.)
  1. Goals and plans for the next 10 years, in light of the self-study process. (~1 page)  
Appendix I - Department-Specific Information
  • Evidence of faculty and staff participation in the department review process, including departmental minutes related to the formal acceptance of the Self-Study Report
  • A list or table of personnel in the department during the review period that provides the following information:
  • University Staff: title and dates of hire and departure, as appropriate
  • Faculty and Academic Staff: title with rank; dates of hire and departure, as appropriate; all promotions, tenure, or indefinite appointments.
  • Other significant information in support of the narrative above, such as faculty research and awards; student research and/or other accomplishments; or results from student, faculty, and/or alumni surveys.
Appendix II - Department Planning Profile
  • Provided to departments by the UWSP Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.
  • Includes data on enrollment, credit production, resources, degrees granted, and other variables as approved by the Department Review Subcommittee in consultation with the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.
Appendix III - Assessment Reports from the 10-Year Period Under Review
Appendix IV - Outside Accreditation reports (if applicable) and External Reviewer comments

 

SECTION 4:  ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND SHARED GOVERNANCE

The submission of a cooperative agreement with another institution, either domestic or foreign, indicates not only commitment of the project coordinator, but of the university.  These agreements, if successful, can result in a significant impact on the university.  Therefore, UWSP has a vested interest in the agreement since the university is ultimately accountable to insure that the conditions as outlined are fulfilled.  Each inter-institutional agreement must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrative personnel and shared governance bodies before it is formally submitted to another institution.

The official UWSP Permission to Develop an Articulation/Inter-institutional Agreement form (available from the Office of Academic Affairs) is designed to facilitate this process.  Please attach a draft copy of the proposed agreement plus any other appropriate supporting materials to this permission form.  Agreements which involve more than one department, school, college or UW-System unit must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate officials of each unit, appropriate shared governance bodies, and ultimately the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  The purpose of this approval process is not to question the professional skill or approaches of the project coordinator, but rather to give assurance that the university supports the plans for the project, and that these plans are consistent with the activities, priorities, and mission of the university.  The opportunity that this formal approval process presents to inform the campus of the proposed activities is important to the faculty member as well as the shared governance bodies and administrators.  The responsibilities of the administrative staff in this approval process are as follows:

  • The Department Chair or Director will: 
  1. review the agreement to assure that faculty and support staff time commitments are reasonable and compatible with departmental workloads, present and planned,
  2. determine that the percentage of time and salaries are accurate, and
  3. agree that the space, facility, and service requirements are within the department’s present or planned resource capability if not specifically provided for in the proposal.
  • The Dean or Line Officer will review the proposal for completeness and confirm that: 
  1. space, service and support requirements are adequately provided for
  2. responsibility is accepted for assuring the availability of local in-kind funds promised in the proposal, and
  3. that the agreement’s budget, salary rates, job titles and classifications are reasonable, appropriate, and consistent with UWSP policy. 
  4. In addition, the Dean/Director should ascertain to what degree the agreement will commit the college/school or unit to long-term support of project personnel or a program which may evolve from the agreement.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor will review the proposal to ensure that it conforms to UWSP and Board of Regents’ policies and state laws; that it is in proper form for submission to the potential collaborators; that it is conducive to the university’s mission by promoting the best academic interests of the university and that implied or definite university commitment of funds, space, and personnel can be met; and that the commitments for matching funds can be met by the university.

Faculty and staff should allow sufficient time for on-campus processing of the proposals to develop a cooperative agreement.  The review responsibilities assigned to administrative personnel and shared governance bodies are of such a nature and extent that “walking a proposal through channels” in a brief period of time is difficult.

Articulation agreements are specific credit transfer agreements between our institution and one or more Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) institutions. Prior to seeking shared governance action on an articulation agreement with a WTCS partner, the agreement should be forwarded to the Transfer Counselor in the Admissions Office for review.

After permission is gained from the appropriate administrative and shared governance bodies, the agreement coordinator is then responsible for drafting the formal articulation agreement for signatures. The formal agreement needs to be formatted in compliance with UWS ACIS 6.2. The formal agreement is routed by the agreement coordinator for signatures of those authorized to enter into these agreements on behalf of UWSP and other non-UWSP partners.  Once the formal articulation agreement is signed by all required signatories, the agreement is then forwarded to UW System to be added to the listing of UW System articulation agreements.

 

SECTION 5:  GRADE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

MEMBERSHIP

  1. The subcommittee shall consist of the following voting members:
  1. Three faculty members representing three distinct academic departments, with the Chairperson appointed by the Academic Affairs Committee, one member elected by the Student Government Association, and one temporary member for each case, appointed by the chairperson of the department of the instructor whose grade is under review.
  2. An alternate faculty member shall be appointed by the Executive Committee of the Common Council to serve whenever it is necessary to maintain the condition of three faculty members representing three distinct academic departments, but in no case shall there be more than one member from the department of the instructor whose grade is under appeal.
  3. Two student members shall be selected by the Student Government Association.  (Two graduate students will be selected by the Student Government Association for appeals brought by graduate students.)
  1. The term of office, except for the temporary member, shall be one year.  Members shall take office at the beginning of the fall semester.  The Chairperson of the Grade Review Subcommittee  shall expedite the formulation of the committee, which shall be complete no later than the third week of the fall semester.
  2. The Office of the Provost/Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs shall designate a Coordinator to review grade appeals and assure continuity and consistency in the screening of grade appeals.  The Coordinator will work with the Chairperson of the Grade Review subcommittee throughout the appeal process.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

Grounds for a grade appeal shall ordinarily be as follows:

  1. The alleged failure of the instructor to provide to the students, not later than the end of the second week of classes, a written statement of how grades will be determined.
  2. The alleged failure of the instructor to assign grades according to the manner described.

PROCEDURES

  1. Before a student may initiate an appeal of a grade, the student is required to consult with the instructor concerned.  However, if the Coordinator for Grade Review determines that such consultation would place undue burden or stress on the student or the instructor or both, the Coordinator shall have the authority to waive this consultation requirement.  If the Coordinator waives this consultation requirement, the Coordinator shall inform both the student and the instructor of this action.

After the student and the instructor have consulted, or after a waiver of the consultation requirement has been authorized, if the student wishes to initiate an appeal, he/she must present, in writing, a request to the Coordinator for Grade Review in the Office of Student Academic Advising no later than the end of the fourth week of classes of the subsequent regular academic year semester.

  1. The Coordinator for Grade Review shall, upon receipt of a written request for grade review, take the following steps:
  1. Meet with the student and discuss the grounds for appeal, the appeal process, and the options available to the Grade Review Subcommittee if the appeal is sustained.
  2. Provide a copy of the student’s allegations or grievances to the instructor concerned and solicit a written statement of explanation from the instructor.
  3. The instructor shall have twenty working days to respond.  Once the Coordinator has received the written response from the professor he/she has up to five working days to send a copy of this response to the student.
  4. After receiving the response, or at the end of the twenty working days, if no response is received, the Coordinator shall evaluate the allegations and make a determination as to the validity of the appeal.
  5. If the Coordinator, on the basis of preliminary evaluation and investigation, concludes that any kind of grade change may possibly be warranted, or if the instructor has failed to respond in writing, s/he shall forward all relevant data to the Subcommittee for Grade Review, with a directive that the allegations be investigated and a determination as to its validity made.
  6. If the student wishes to appeal the decision of the Coordinator, a second appeal may be made to the Chairperson of the Grade Review Subcommittee.  The Coordinator shall notify the professor of this action.  If further investigation is warranted, the Chairperson will act accordingly.  A rejection of an appeal by the Chairperson is final and may not be further appealed within the Faculty governance system.  If the Chairperson has a personal conflict with a case the Chairperson of the Academic Affairs Committee will appoint an acting Chairperson.
  1. Under ordinary circumstances (i.e., with all parties on campus), the Grade Review Subcommittee shall adhere to a deadline of the end of the semester in which the appeal was initiated to complete its deliberations and decide on the appeal.
  2. If the Subcommittee for Grade Review determines that a valid evaluation of grievance requires special academic expertise, or at the request of the instructor concerned, the Subcommittee shall solicit an independent evaluation in writing from a body of three impartial experts appointed by the Chairperson of the instructor’s department, in consultation with the instructor and the Subcommittee Chairperson.  The Subcommittee for Grade Review shall accept the evaluation and recommendations of the impartial body of experts on matters of academic content when such evaluation and recommendation are solicited.

After its investigation, the Subcommittee for Grade Review shall inform both the student and the instructor of its decision in writing.  In the event that the Subcommittee finds that a change of grade is warranted, it shall in addition recommend to the instructor the appropriate grade change.  If the instructor refuses to make the recommended grade change within ten school days of the Subcommittee notification, the Subcommittee shall take one or more of the following steps to protect the student’s interest:

  1. attach to the student’s transcript a statement of the recommended change of grade and the reasons for not changing the grade;
  2. exempt the challenged grade from any calculation in the student’s grade point average, unless the student wishes the grade to be included;
  3. authorize the student’s graduation minus the credit hours represented by the challenged grade in the event that the original grade was an F.
  1. Decisions made by the Grade Review Subcommittee may not be appealed further in the faculty governance system.

 

SECTION 6:  UWSP GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW OF APPROVED CHANGES

Step 1: Mission Statement

(Approved May 2008)

The General Education Program (GEP) provides the framework of a liberal education, equipping students with the knowledge and skills to facilitate intellectual and personal growth, pursue their advanced studies, and improve the world in which they live.

At UW-Stevens Point (UWSP), we believe that a liberal education is essential to living in today’s global society. We also believe that global citizenship must begin at home with individuals learning to see the world from perspectives other than their own. Some of these perspectives are cultural and develop from the study of other languages, ethnicities, and beliefs. Some perspectives come from honing new intellectual skills, by learning math and science, for example, or cultivating an understanding of the past and an appreciation of the arts and literature. And some perspectives are the products of unique experiences such as getting involved in a community or studying abroad.

Ultimately, the more students are encouraged to step outside their familiar habits and beliefs, the more they gain the wisdom to see connections between themselves and the world around them, the generosity to empathize with the differences they encounter, and the willingness to place their newfound abilities in the service of a larger community. In this way, a liberal education at UWSP prepares students to be responsible global citizens.

Step 2: GEP Learning Outcomes

(Approved February 2009)

The GEP seeks to develop these qualities of global citizenship in four distinct ways. After completing the general education curriculum, students will:

  • Demonstrate critical thinking, quantitative, and communication skills necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing global society.
  • Demonstrate broad knowledge of the physical, social, and cultural worlds as well as the methods by which this knowledge is produced.
  • Recognize that responsible global citizenship involves personal accountability, social equity, and environmental sustainability.
  • Apply their knowledge and skills, working in interdisciplinary ways to solve problems.

Step 3: Model & Relationship to Degree Types

(Approved April 2009)

The committee recommends that UWSP employ a distribution model in creating a curriculum to meet its recently approved GEP Program Outcomes. By its very nature, the distribution model allows substantial flexibility in the shaping of a curriculum. Consequently, to this broad recommendation, the committee adds the following specific proposals:

  1. The GEP should apply to all students regardless of degree type (BA, BS, BM, and BFA).
  2. In addition to the GEP, separate degree requirements for the BA, BS, BM, and BFA should be developed at the university-level by the Academic Affairs Committee after Step 4 is complete.

Step 4: Structural Components & Measurable Learning Outcomes

(Approved April 2010; revised 2/20/2013, Resolution 2012-2013-113; revised 4/17/2013, Resolution 2012-2013-162; revised 3/4/2015, Resolution 2014-2015-130; revised 2/17/2016, Resolution 2015-2016-103; revised 3/2/2016, Resolution 2015-2016-115; revised 3/16/16, Resolution 2015-2016-129)

GEP Curriculum

Students will fulfill these program outcomes (in Step 2 above) by completing the following General Education requirements:

FOUNDATION: DEVELOPING FUNDAMENTAL SKILLS

Courses listed under this category are intended to provide students with the basic skills necessary for intellectual development and to succeed in their studies at UWSP, including critical thinking, quantitative literacy, information literacy, written and oral communication, and wellness. Students will complete 16 credits in this area, including the following:

Please note, the First Year Seminar was approved to be suspended for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic years.  In lieu of a First Year Seminar, incoming student will need to take 24 credits at the investigation level with 3-9 credits in each category.  (Resolution 2016-2017-059, 11/2/2016)

First Year Seminar (3 credits)

A First Year Seminar is an academically rigorous foundational course for incoming first year students. The course is designed to introduce critical thinking skills, orient students to the academic community and campus life, and equip incoming freshman with other skills necessary to be a successful student. Fostering intellectual inquiry and self-assessment, this course will help students begin the process of taking responsibility for their education, career choices, and personal development.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Describe the key components and purpose of a liberal education and explain how a liberal education will shape your college studies, career, and life.
  • Identify key components of critical thinking and information literacy and apply the associated skills within course assignments.
  • Identify and apply appropriate skills for college success, as well as appropriate UW-Stevens Point programs, resources, and services designed to support your academic studies.
  • Develop an educational plan that demonstrates the responsibility you will take for your own education, including curricular and co-curricular experiences.
Written and Oral Communication (9 credits)

Written Communication (6 credits): Introductory writing classes provide an essential foundation of communication skills on which students can build throughout the rest of their university careers and beyond. They develop students’ skills in analyzing audience, structuring written documents, and understanding and applying the conventions of effective writing.

Subsequent writing courses build upon these skills by helping students learn to locate sources, critically analyze information, and synthesize their ideas with those of others to write well-supported academic arguments. They also provide an essential starting point for the more specialized writing students will be expected to do in the future within their fields of study.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Compose an articulate, thoughtful, grammatically correct, and logically organized piece of writing with properly documented and supported ideas, evidence, and information suitable to the topic, purpose, genre, and audience.
  • Apply your understanding of elements that shape successful writing to critique and improve your own and others’ writing through effective and useful feedback.
Oral communication (3 credits)

Learning to speak effectively is an essential part of a liberal education. However, effective communication in today’s society requires more than the acquisition of oral presentation skills. UWSP also expects students to develop skills in using visual communications technologies and other media tools in order to enhance presentations and connect more meaningfully with audiences.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Compose and deliver articulate, grammatically correct and organized oral  assignments using appropriate communication technologies as well as properly documented and supported ideas, evidence, and information suitable to the topic, purpose, oral communication activity/genre, and audience.
  • Apply your understanding of elements that shape successful oral communication such as topic, purpose, genre, and audience to critique your own and others’ delivery to provide effective and useful feedback to improve your communication skills.
Quantitative Literacy (3 credits)

Quantitative literacy is knowledge of and confidence with basic mathematical/analytical concepts and operations required for problem-solving, decision-making, economic productivity and real-world applications. Such skills are essential for citizens living in today’s global society.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Select, analyze, and interpret appropriate numerical data used in everyday life in numerical and graphical format.
  • Identify and apply appropriate strategies of quantitative problem solving in theoretical and practical applications.
  • Construct a conclusion using quantitative justification.
Wellness (1 credit)

Wellness is a dynamic process of becoming aware of and making conscious choices toward a more balanced and healthy lifestyle. It is multi-dimensional and holistic, encompassing lifestyle, mental and spiritual wellbeing, and the environment. Wellness is an essential attribute of a well-rounded, liberally educated person and of strong societies. Understanding the dimensions of wellness and their impact on individuals, families and societies is essential to being a responsible global citizen.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Assess your own wellness in each of the seven dimensions of wellness and explain how the dimensions and the interactions among them impact your overall personal health and well-being.
  • Develop an individual plan for healthy living that demonstrates an understanding of the principles of wellness.
INVESTIGATION: UNDERSTANDING THE PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL WORLDS

Building on the skills and knowledge from the foundation level, courses listed under this category are meant to encourage students to acquire broad knowledge of the world in which they live, as well as the various disciplinary methods by which this knowledge is produced. Students will complete 21 credits in this area, including a minimum of 3 credits and a maximum of 6 credits from each category below.

Arts (3-6 credits)

The arts celebrate the human capacity to imagine, to create and to transform ideas into expressive forms. The arts provide us with a rich record of human cultures and values throughout time. They enable us to understand and enjoy the experience of our senses and to sharpen our aesthetic sense. Courses in the arts examine the process of creativity, and explore the artistic imagination or the relationship between artists, their works and the societies in which their works are produced. The arts challenge us to understand creativity and the distinctive intellectual process of the human imagination.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Describe, analyze or critique creative works utilizing knowledge of relevant aesthetic criteria or stylistic forms.

Do at least ONE of the following

  • Identify and explain the relationship between particular traditions or genres of creative expression and their social, historical or cultural contexts.
  • Demonstrate an understanding of creative expression by producing or performing a creative work.
Humanities (3-6 credits)

The humanities explore the fundamental ideas and values shaping cultures and civilization, in life and as represented in the written word, using scholarly approaches that are primarily analytical, critical, or interpretive. By introducing students to concepts and beliefs within and outside their own perspectives, courses in the humanities help students to understand and critically engage a variety of worldviews and the ideas that give them meaning. 

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Read closely, think critically, and write effectively about texts or cultural artifacts that reflect on perennial questions concerning the human condition (such as the search for truth and meaning, the confrontation with suffering and mortality, or the struggle for justice, equality, and human dignity).
  • Investigate and thoughtfully respond to a variety of ideas, beliefs, or values held by persons in situations other than one’s own.
Historical Perspectives (3-6 credits)

An understanding of the past and the methods by which people seek to explain it are essential to finding meaning in the present. By exploring the evolution of human societies-their institutions, ideas, and values-students gain a framework for understanding themselves and the world; and they learn to make connections between history and the natural sciences, the social sciences, the arts, and the humanities.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Use primary sources as evidence to answer questions about historical change.
  • Describe difference among interpretations of the past.
  • Analyze institutional and cultural changes in one or more human societies over time.
Social Sciences (3-6 credits)

The social sciences provide students with an understanding of humans and their behavior as individuals and within communities, institutions, and social structures. Courses in this category equip students to contribute to public discourse and function as responsible citizens of their professions and communities.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Explain or apply major concepts, methods, or theories used in the social sciences to investigate, to analyze, or predict human behavior.
  • Examine and explain how social, cultural, or political institutions influence individuals or groups.
Natural Sciences (3-6 credits)

As the progress of our society becomes more dependent on science and technology, our future becomes increasingly dependent upon a scientifically literate population. Individuals today must be sufficiently knowledgeable about scientific facts, science applications, and the process of scientific inquiry in order to make reasoned decisions concerning their use in addressing society’s problems. Courses in this area must contain a laboratory component to help students develop an understanding of scientific inquiry.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Interpret information, solve problems, and make decisions by applying natural science concepts, methods, and quantitative techniques.
  • Explain major concepts, methods, or theories used in the natural sciences to investigate the physical world.
  • Describe the relevance of aspects of the natural sciences to your life and society.
CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Courses listed in this area are meant to foster greater awareness of cultural and environmental issues that currently shape today’s world as a means of better preparing students for responsible citizenship. Students will complete 3 credits in each area below. But since these courses are intended to be cross-listed as requirements in other parts of the general education curriculum, for most students, they should require no additional credits.

Global Awareness

Global Awareness courses examine the unique cultural, political, economic, intellectual, and/or religious components of societies, countries, regions, and peoples that are distinct from those found within the United States. By learning about these cultures, students can appreciate the key differences and similarities between diverse modes of human life and reach a better understanding of the human condition on a global scale. Moreover, this understanding will prepare students to act thoughtfully and responsibly in a global society.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Identify the key components found within one or more cultures that are distinct from those found in predominantly English-speaking cultures.
  • Analyze key forces or processes that contribute to global interconnectedness, and their implications.
  • Demonstrate curiosity and empathetic insight about diverse cultural perspectives.
U.S. Diversity

U.S. Diversity courses are designed to consider the role of diversity in American life, where diversity is defined to include both individual differences (e.g. personality, learning styles, and life experiences) and other group and social differences (e.g. race, gender, ethnicity, country of origin, class, sexual identity/orientation, religion, ability, or other affiliations). Satisfaction of this requirement will prepare students to act thoughtfully and responsibly as a U.S. citizen in a global society. 

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Describe how people or institutions in the United States have constructed diverse identities and cultures based on ability, ethnicity, gender, language, nationality, race, religion, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc.
  • Explain how individuals or groups in the United States have responded to the experience of discrimination and inequality.
  • Demonstrate understanding of and empathetic insight about diverse cultural perspectives in the United States.
Environmental Responsibility

Maintaining a sustainable natural environment is necessary to the long-term survival of all organisms, including humans. An understanding of the individual, social, cultural, and natural factors that influence and contribute to environmental sustainability and ecosystem function is, therefore, essential to responsible global citizenship.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Identify interactions between human society and the natural environment.
  • Analyze the individual, social, cultural, and ecological factors that influence environmental sustainability.
  • Evaluate competing claims that inform environmental debates.
INTEGRATION: APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

Courses listed under this category are meant to build on the earlier components of the GEP giving students the opportunity to develop, integrate, and apply the knowledge and skills they learned. Students will complete at least 3 credits in this area, as well as several additional requirements.

Interdisciplinary Studies (3 credits)

Under this category, students are asked to complete one of three options: a single three- credit interdisciplinary course; an Interdisciplinary Certificate; or an Interdisciplinary Major or Minor. Each option encourages students to apply the knowledge and skills they have learned in the context of a topic of their choosing, and to do so in ways that facilitate making connections across disciplines. In this way, students learn to recognize that issues can be viewed in multiple ways, and that solving problems requires integrating and harmonizing these perspectives.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Identify an issue or question related to the interdisciplinary course(s), and describe what each discipline contributes to an understanding of that issue.
  • Explain the benefits of being able to combine these contributions.
Experiential Learning (non-GEP credit)

Experiential learning is a broad concept, including many types of active, hands-on learning opportunities.  It is an example of a “high-impact teaching practice” that has been shown to enhance a student’s comprehension of course material, to enable students to see connections between theory and practice, to aid student retention, and to develop a student’s sense of responsibility for their education.  Moreover, experiential learning provides students with an experience that aids in the development of leadership skills and responsible citizenship.

Experiential leaning is the synthesis of hands-on experience with some relevant aspect of a student’s university education.  This synthesis of experience with learning takes place in the context of a structured reflection activity.  An appropriate reflection activity will vary depending on the experiential learning activity and the intended learning outcomes.

In some cases, students can satisfy this requirement by completing a structured, credit bearing course that has been proposed by an academic department and approved by the General Education Committee.  Department proposing the credit-bearing course or experience will use their best judgment when determining the number of hours required, as well as the type of reflection required of students.  In other cases, however, students may elect to satisfy this requirement by completing an Experiential Learning Activity (ELA).

Students benefit from opportunities to learn by reflecting on experiences beyond their typical classroom activities and by applying the knowledge and skills they gain from traditional courses in new settings.  To this end, students are required to complete an Experiential Learning requirement as part of UWSP’s new GEP. 

To fulfill this requirement, students will:

  • Complete an approved experiential learning project.
  • Reflect on the experiential learning activity in order to gain further understanding of your university education, and an enhanced sense of one’s personal responsibility as a member of a larger community.  (Note: “Community” in this context is defined as any of the various on- or off-campus departments, units, or organizations with whom students might work to complete their Experience Learning requirement.)
Communication in the Major (non-GEP credit)

Communication in the Major courses provide students with systematic opportunities to develop oral and written communication skills in the context of their chosen fields, beginning the process of learning to communicate effectively in discipline-specific formats and styles.

Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

  • Produce well-delivered and organized presentations or other forms of oral communication with properly documented and supported ideas and evidence suitable to the topic, purpose, and audience, according to discipline-specific standards.
  • Create grammatically correct and organized written texts produced through a process of revision and peer critique, with properly documented and supported ideas and evidence suitable to the topic, purpose, and audience, according to discipline-specific standards of written communication.
Capstone Experience in the Major (non-GEP credit)

A capstone experience is either a single seminar or a broader culminating experience designed to be offered near the completion of a student’s program of study. It is meant to provide students the opportunity to make connections between the key learning objectives of their majors and the GEP Outcomes, and to consider how their educations have prepared them for the world beyond the university.

To fulfill this requirement, students will:

  • Complete a project that integrates knowledge, skills, and experiences related to those GEP Outcomes appropriate to the discipline.
  • Demonstrate skills, processes, and resources needed to make a successful transition from college to the world beyond.
Procedure for Waivers and Substitutions for GEP Requirements

A request for a waiver of substitution for a GEP requirement should begin during a meeting of the student with his/her advisor. Such a request should not be regarded as routine, but made in response to a specific situation faced by the individual student-typically, as a remedy when fulfilling the requirement through ordinary means would delay the student’s imminent graduation.A statement explaining why the student and advisor believe the waiver/substitution is justified must be part of the request.

The Authorization to Adjust GEP Requirements form must be signed by the advisor, the Chair/Head of the department (or equivalent unit) of the student’s major, the Dean of the student’s college or his/her designee, and finally the Director of General Education.The Director’s approval is required except for waivers of the 60-credit rule, allowing a student who has not completed the Foundation Level of the GEP by the time he/she completes 60 credits to register for more than 12 credits.

In a doubtful case, the Director will contact the Dean, Chair, advisor, and/or instructor of the course before deciding to approve or deny the request.

The completed form, with all required signatures, is submitted to Office of the Registrar.

Notes:

  • Waivers or substitutions for GEP requirements that are embedded in the major (Capstone and Communication in the Major requirements) are handled like any other exception for major requirements (typically, authorized by the department chair).
  • Students under the older general education system (GDRs) should use the “Authorization to Adjust General Degree Requirements” form, which does not require Director of General Education approval.
  • Transfer courses that have not been identified as equivalent to a specific UWSP course will be evaluated for GEP credit by the transfer credit admissions advisor in consultation with the Director of General Education.

Step 5: Course Criteria

(Approved April 2011; revised 2/6/2013, Resolution 2012-2013-099; revised 9/18/2013, Resolution 2013-2014-023; revised 12/3/2014, Resolution 2014-2015-082; revised 5/6/2015, Resolution 2014-2015-178; revised 12/7/2016, Resolution 2016-2017-083)

GENERAL CRITERIA

  1. These criteria apply to the Foundation, Investigation, and Integration levels of the GEP.
  2. All courses to be considered for the GEP must be proposed by an academic department or functional equivalent.
  3. All courses to be considered for the GEP must be approved by the General Education Committee through the submission of a course proposal. The proposal will typically include:
  1. Basic course information, including course number, title, credits, and catalog description.
  2. A representative course syllabus, including learning outcomes aligned with those of the GEP.c. A narrative describing how student learning will be assessed.
  1. All courses must address the approved learning outcomes in the category in which they are taught.
  2. All courses should be taught by an instructor with teaching, research, or professional expertise in an appropriate area of study in order to satisfy the relevant learning outcomes in each category.


Typically, instructors should possess at least a Master’s degree appropriate to the area or category of the proposed course.

Criteria for instructor qualifications for teaching courses in the Quantitative Literacy category: A master’s degree, or 18 graduate credits, in one or more disciplines that feature mathematical applications or statistical analysis. Such disciplines include, but are not limited to, Mathematics, Statistics, Social Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Sciences.

Criteria for instructor qualifications for teaching courses in the Environmental Responsibility, United States Diversity, Global Awareness, and Wellness categories:

  • Instructor holds a terminal degree or a master’s degree in a discipline or field appropriate to the GEP category of the course

or

  • Instructor has completed some combination of 18 hours of graduate coursework, comprehensive examination work, and/or graduate thesis work on topic(s) relevant to the GEP category of the course

or

  • Instructor has engaged professionally with the relevant GEP category through scholarship and research and can produce evidence of that engagement, e.g., publications, conference papers, post-doctoral fellowships, research grants, and/or extensive professional development

or

  • Instructor has a combination of graduate coursework, scholarship and/ or research criteria that demonstrates teaching competency in the relevant GEP category

Note: If there is a question about instructor qualifications, the General Education Committee must seek advice from the appropriate department(s) and may request a brief curriculum vitae describing the instructor’s qualifications.

  1. No course in the Foundation or Investigation Levels may satisfy more than one general education requirement, unless it is paired with one of the following categories: Global Awareness, U.S.           Diversity, Environmental Responsibility, or Experiential Learning.
  2. Courses that exceed the GEP credit requirements satisfy the requirement.

FOUNDATION

  1. All requirements in the Foundation Level must be completed before students reach 60 credits. If not, students will be restricted to enrolling for a maximum of 12 credits each semester until the Foundation Level is complete.
First Year Seminar
  1. All First Year Seminars must be numbered according to the following scheme, with appropriate subtitle:
  1. FYS 101: Foundations of Critical Inquiry (GEP: FYS)
  2. FYS 102: Foundations of Critical Inquiry (GEP: FYS and Global Awareness)
  3. FYS 103: Foundations of Critical Inquiry (GEP: FYS and U.S. Diversity)
  4. FYS 104: Foundations of Critical Inquiry (GEP: FYS and Environmental Responsibility)
  5. FYS 105: Foundations of Critical Inquiry (GEP: FYS and Experiential Learning)
  6. FYS 392: Peer Mentoring (GEP: FYS and Experiential Learning)
  7. All First Year Seminars should focus on topics about which instructors have both expertise and interest, and which are engaging to a general audience of first-year students.  The primary function of the First Year Seminar should NOT be to serve as an introduction to a major.
  8. Ordinarily, no First Year Seminar may be required for a major.
  1. Current non-instructional staff are invited to seek adjunct teaching appointments with academic departments in order to teach first-year seminars.
  2. All First Year Seminar instructors must attend a workshop coordinated by the Center for Inclusive Teaching and Learning.
  3. FYS courses should have sufficiently small enrollments so that students will receive appropriate individual feedback.
Written Communication
  1. The Written Communication outcomes will be satisfied by English 101: Freshman English and English 202: Sophomore English.
  2. English 150: Advanced Freshman English may be substituted for English 101/202, with the appropriate placement.
  3. English 101 should be taken during the student’s freshman year.
  4. English 202 should be taken during the student’s sophomore year and will have a prerequisite of English 101.
  5. Written Communication courses should have sufficiently small enrollments so that students will receive appropriate individual feedback.
Oral Communication
  1. The Oral Communication outcomes will be satisfied by Communication 101: Fundamentals of Oral Communication.
  2. Oral Communication courses should have sufficiently small enrollments so that students will receive appropriate individual feedback.
Quantitative Literacy
  1. All Quantitative Literacy courses will have a prerequisite of Math 90 or higher.
Wellness
  1. Wellness is a one-credit requirement that may be satisfied by a one-, two-, or three-credit course.

INVESTIGATION

  1. All courses at the Investigation Level should be designed to serve one of two student populations:
  1. Survey courses designed to serve all students regardless of major; such courses do not presume academic or disciplinary preparation beyond the Foundation Level;
  1. Courses designed to serve students in specific majors; such courses presume more advanced background preparation appropriate to the discipline.  Ordinarily, courses in the Investigation Level will not have prerequisites beyond the Foundation Level. Departments must provide a rationale when proposing General Education courses with prerequisites.
  2. A single course may not be designated for more than one Investigation Level category.

CULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

  1. The instructor and course criteria for the categories of Global Awareness, U.S. Diversity, and Environmental Responsibility are driven exclusively by the approved learning outcomes. A combination of education, research, and professional development related to these categories that allow the learning outcomes to be met is considered qualifying.
  2. Ordinarily, courses offered in this area will fulfill one other requirement in the General Education curriculum at the same time, either at the Foundation, Investigation, or Integration Levels.
  3. A single course may not be designated for more than one Cultural and Environmental Awareness category.

INTEGRATION

Interdisciplinary Studies
  1. Students will complete either: a single Interdisciplinary Studies course or an approved Interdisciplinary Major, Minor, or Certificate.
  2. “Interdisciplinary” shall be defined as “integrating content, data, methods, tools, concepts, and theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge in order to advance fundamental understanding, answer questions, address complex issues and broad themes, and solve problems” (from Julie Thompson Klein, Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability, 2010).
  3. The course content, methods and related learning outcomes must be closely related to two distinct categories in the Investigation Level, namely Arts, Humanities, Historical Perspectives, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences.

For single Interdisciplinary Studies courses:

  1. If the course is co-taught by two instructors:
  1. The instructors should represent two distinct disciplines, as defined above.
  2. The instructors should provide a written explanation regarding the division of work.
  1. If the course is proposed by a single instructor:
  1. In some cases, a single instructor may have a Master’s Degree in two distinct disciplinary fields that will be used in the course.
  2. In other cases, in addition to a Master’s Degree in one discipline, a single instructor should possess adequate teaching or research experience in another discipline to allow students to satisfy the approved learning outcomes for Interdisciplinary Studies. The instructor should provide a written explanation of how their teaching experience, research, or other academic training has prepared them to teach an Interdisciplinary Studies course.

For Interdisciplinary Majors, Minors, and Certificates:

  1. Interdisciplinary, as defined above, should be the organizing principle of the coursework involved. An interdisciplinary program is an intentional integration of multiple disciplines. In other words, it is not meant to focus largely on a single discipline or methodology with one or two extra courses added to the requirements.
  2. The program must include a plan from the department or coordinator for how student achievement of the approved interdisciplinary learning outcomes will be assessed.

Please note, The General Education Committee interprets Step 5 as allowing Interdisciplinary Studies to cross with Experiential Learning.

Experiential Learning
  1. Experiential Learning will provide students with meaningful learning experiences and activities that go beyond traditional classroom settings.
  2. The Experiential Learning requirement may be completed through one of two different options: (a) structured, recurring credit-bearing course(s) or learning experience(s), or (b) a student-initiated learning experience that could be either credit-bearing or non-credit- bearing. Each option must meet the approved learning outcomes.
  1. The first option, as proposed by an academic department and approved by the  General Education Committee, includes (but is not limited to) the following possibilities:

service-learning courses, internships, externships, practicum experiences, field experiences, student teaching, or credit-bearing study-abroad experiences. Students transferring to UWSP can request to have a previous experiential learning course satisfy the requirement. 

  1. The second option, as proposed by an individual student, is an “Experiential Learning Activity”, and includes (but is not limited to) any of the following possibilities: credit-bearing independent studies, undergraduate research opportunities, or creative performances; community service projects; student leadership experiences; professional development through paid or unpaid work experiences or internships. Students must complete the ELA while enrolled at UWSP.
  1. All ELAs (option 2b above) must meet the following criteria:
  1. All ELAs must be coordinated with an ELA Mentor. Any UWSP faculty or academic staff (instructional or non-instructional) member may serve as a Mentor for an ELA.  University staff with at least a bachelor’s degree and at least three years of experience working with students at the secondary or post-secondary level are also eligible.  University staff not meeting these criteria may apply to the Director of General Education for a possible exemption.
  2. Students must meet with their ELA Mentor and complete an ELA Plan form before beginning the activity.
  3. The ELA Plan must be approved by the Mentor before the student begins the activity.
  4. An ELA must consist of a minimum of 16 hours of service and/or experience.
  5. Students must reflect on their activity through oral and/or written communication with their Mentor.
  6. The Mentor will evaluate the ELA.
  7. The Mentor will record when the ELA has been completed. 
  1. Student veterans may satisfy the Experiential Learning requirement in a non-credit bearing way by working with an ELA Mentor to reflect upon the connections between their military service and their coursework at UWSP.

To satisfy the Experiential Learning requirement in this way, veterans must

  • Have earned at least 24 credits from UWSP.
  • Meet with their ELA Mentor at least once before formally reflecting upon the connections between their military service and their coursework at UWSP.
  • Reflect upon the connections between their military service and their coursework at UWSP through written communication with their ELA Mentor.

The ELA Mentor will record when the Experiential Learning requirement has been satisfied.

Communication in the Major
  1. The Communication in the Major requirement addresses discipline-specific communication that builds on the Written and Oral Communication learning outcomes of the Foundation level.
  2. Departments or units will designate a minimum of six credits at the 200-level or above within each major to meet the Communication in the Major requirement. Departments may distribute this requirement over any number of courses. These courses may, when appropriate, come from other departments but must be included as part of the major.
  3. These courses must include a plan for how student achievement of the approved Communication in the Major learning outcomes will be assessed.
  4. All instructors teaching Communication in the Major courses must complete a workshop coordinated by the Center for Inclusive Teaching and Learning.
  5. Communication in the Major courses should have sufficiently small enrollments so that students will receive adequate personal feedback, from both instructors and their peers, on their communication skills.
  6. Assignments should be based on the kinds of communication typical of the relevant discipline or profession.
  7. Both writing and speaking instruction should be integrated into course discussions and activities and include grading criteria, revision experiences, and opportunities for student peer review. Writing and speaking instruction can be taught together in a single course or divided among courses.
Capstone Experience in the Major
  1. Departments will designate a Capstone course(s) or experience for each of its majors.
  2. The Capstone course(s) or experience should require the use of skills, methodology, and knowledge which demonstrate continuity between the General Education Program Outcomes and the major.
  3. Capstone courses or experiences should have sufficiently small enrollment caps to allow for active participation by each student and feedback by the instructor. 

Step 6: Administration & Assessment

(Approved February 2012; revised 9/17/2014, Resolution 2014-2015-014)

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

The assessment of student learning in the General Education curriculum will be the responsibility of the General Education Committee. Assessment within the GEP is intended to be a formal process of inquiry into student learning.  More than simply an exercise in documenting the level of student achievement within the program, assessment is an exploration of how and why students learn, or fail to learn, within a particular curricular and pedagogical context. It explores both the outcomes that students achieve as well as the processes through which they learn. In this way, assessment should be viewed as an open-ended scholarly activity, a collaborative action research project aimed at the improvement of teaching and learning. (For a detailed explanation of the theory underpinning this approach to assessment, see Peggy Maki, Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment Across the Institution, Second Edition (2010), 123-153.)

The evaluation of student learning in the General Education curriculum will be the responsibility of the General Education Committee (GEC).  The role of the committee in this regard shall be to:

  1. recommend policies and procedures for General Education assessment to the Common Council;
  2. facilitate the process by which General Education assessment data is gathered, evaluated, and communicated;
  1. assist departments and faculty to identify, develop, and utilize course-level assessment measures;
  2. identify, develop, and utilize institutional level measures in concert with the Assessment Subcommittee and the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness;
  1. make recommendations to Common Council regarding improvements to the GEP;
  2. support instructional development and curricular improvements;
  3. review and update the General Education assessment process regularly.

Assessment of student learning within the General Education curriculum will take place on a five-year cycle. The first four years of the cycle will be focused on courses in the four levels of the curriculum. In addition, during each of the first four years, information will be gathered related to one of the four GEP Outcomes from courses in the Investigation Level.  Based on these results, the fifth year of the Assessment Cycle will be devoted to a comprehensive review of the GEP and Assessment Plan.

Year 1:

  • Foundation-Level Courses (First Year Seminar, Written and Oral Communication, Quantitative Literacy, and Wellness)
  • Program Outcome 1 (Demonstrate critical thinking, quantitative, and communication skills necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing global society)

Year 2:

  • Investigation-Level Courses (Arts, Humanities, Historical Perspectives, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences) Program Outcome 2 (Demonstrate broad knowledge of the physical, social, and cultural worlds as well as the methods by which this knowledge is produced)

Year 3:

  • Cultural and Environmental Awareness-Level Courses (Global Awareness, U.S. Diversity, and Environmental Responsibility)
  • Program Outcome 3 (Recognize that responsible global citizenship involves personal accountability, social equity, and environmental sustainability)

Year 4:

  • Integration-Level Courses (Interdisciplinary Studies, Experiential Learning, Communication in the Major, and Capstone Experience in the Major)
  • Program Outcome 4 (Apply their knowledge and skills, working in interdisciplinary ways to solve problems)

Year 5:

  • Comprehensive Review of GEP and Assessment Plan

Evidence of student achievement will be collected along three dimensions: (a) course-based measurements for each GEP level utilizing course portfolios compiled by instructors, (b) institutional- level measurements conducted through periodic standardized tests and surveys administered by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness and (c) course-based measurements for each of the four GE Program Outcomes, potentially utilizing course portfolios and departmental assessment. Each year, this information will be reviewed and evaluated by faculty learning communities under the direction of the GEC, the Director of General Education, and the Assessment Coordinator. In turn, the GEC will annually report these results and its recommendations for improving the GEP to the Common Council, the Provost, the Deans, and others.

Course-Based Measurements

The GEC will regularly gather course-level information on student learning through the collection of course portfolios. A course portfolio is a selection of materials from a given course-including the syllabus and relevant examples of student work-along with reflective statements written by the instructor that explore how the course structures and assessment strategies contributed to student learning. Faculty members teaching designated General Education courses will be required to prepare a course portfolio according to the five-year cycle noted above. (Note: the GEC will consult with departments offering multiple sections of the same GEP course to establish a plan for assessment; such a plan will specify a subset of instructors/sections who will submit course portfolios.) Each course portfolio will contain the following elements:

  1. Course Information:
  1. A syllabus, including an explanation of how the intended learning outcomes of the course align with those of the GEP category.
  2. A brief narrative describing how the relevant General Education learning outcomes will be met by students through course experiences, assignments, and/or activities.
  1. Assessment Information:
  1. A discipline-appropriate evaluation of student attainment of at least one learning outcome, including a brief explanation of how student learning was assessed. (Note: Although courses should be designed to meet all the approved learning outcomes in a particular category, the actual assessment can and should focus on a smaller subset of these outcomes.)
  2. Examples of student work related to the evaluation above showing a range of student achievement.
  3. The specific criteria or rubric that was used to evaluate student work.
  4. Results of any other feedback mechanisms used in the course that explore student perceptions of course assignments and their alignment with the general education learning outcomes.
  5. A brief statement explaining how assessment results will be used to improve learning in the course in the future.

The General Education Assessment Process

The annual process of evaluating student learning within the General Education curriculum will have the following steps:

  1. At the beginning of each academic year, the GEC will establish faculty learning communities for each area of the curriculum being assessed during that year. Each faculty learning community will include 4-6 faculty members teaching courses in the categories under review and includes the Assessment Coordinator and a member of the GEC representing the particular GEP category. The faculty learning community will coordinate with faculty across campus to ensure the body of course portfolios will provide adequate evidence of student learning for each of the learning outcomes in the GEP category.
  2. Instructors teaching courses in areas under review in the fall semester will prepare and submit course portfolios to the Assessment Coordinator by February 1
  3. Each faculty learning community will review course portfolios provided by the Assessment Coordinator and provide feedback to instructors. This feedback will only be shared with the instructor.
  4. The Assessment Coordinator will collaborate with the faculty learning communities to aggregate findings from the course portfolios, along with data from the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, and prepare a report for the GEC by May 1. No information identifying instructors, students or specific courses shall be included in the report.
  5. At the beginning of the next academic year, the GEC will report to the Common Council on its assessment of student learning, including any recommendations to improve the curriculum. The report may also recommend further action research projects to investigate particular aspects of student learning or to explore the impact of particular changes to the curriculum. The report must be submitted to the Senate by November 1. This report will be shared with the Provost, the Deans, and the department chairs. In addition, it will be posted online to be available to the campus community and others.

Institutional-Level Measurements

The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness will regularly administer standardized tests and student surveys in an effort to measure student learning and experiences on campus. The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness will work with the GEC, the Director of General Education, and the Assessment Coordinator to share results that are applicable and useful for assessment within the GEP. These tests will include those institutional-level assessments required for external accountability or reporting.

Given that such measurements provide an institutional snapshot of student learning, the results will be utilized by the GEC in concert with other data gathered through course-based assessment.

The Use of Assessment Results

Assessment results are intended for two purposes: 1) to provide feedback to individual instructors to assist in their efforts to improve student learning within their courses; and 2) to make judgments about the effectiveness of the GEP and to inform recommendations for its improvement.  To achieve these aims, assessment results will be shared in the following manner:

  1. Each instructor submitting a course portfolio will receive individual feedback from the faculty learning community, including an evaluation of the assessment method utilized in the course and recommendations for the improvement of student learning. This evaluation will include the rubric used by the faculty learning community in forming its opinions. This information will be provided only to the instructors themselves and will not be shared with departments, Deans, the Provost, or the GEC.
  2. Working in concert with the faculty learning communities, the Assessment Coordinator will compile reports on student learning for the GEC, removing references to specific courses and instructors.  The GEC’s final report will contain:
  1. A summary of student attainment of the learning outcomes in the relevant General Education areas.
  2. Recommendations based on these assessment results for the improvement of the General Education curriculum. These recommendations may include proposals for further action research projects related to particular courses, GEP categories, GE Program Outcomes, or specific groups of students.
  1. The GEC will report annually to the Common Council sharing its evaluation and recommendations with the Provost, the Deans, and the department chairs. The report will also be posted online to be available to the campus community and others.
  2. In conjunction with the Director of General Education and the Assessment Coordinator, the GEC will work with various units on campus in order to provide professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. In this manner, the GEC will help to “close the loop” by allowing assessment of student learning lead to curricular and pedagogical improvements. Such professional development opportunities might include:
  1. Workshops on effective assessment of student learning in the General Education curriculum.
  2. Instructional development necessitated by Common Council-approved changes to the curriculum or learning outcomes.
  3. Action research projects intended to provide further information on student learning within the curriculum.

Procedure in the event that, as a result of reviewing course portfolios, a course or program prompts concerns about alignment with the learning outcomes in its current GEP category:

Step 1:

The Chair of the department offering the course/program is invited to meet with the Chair of the GEC, the Assessment Coordinator, and the Director of General Education, along with other members of that department the chair deems appropriate.  This could be the instructor(s) of the course(s) in question, the department’s Curriculum Committee, or the entire department.

All parties will attempt to agree on the appropriate next step, which could be one of the following:

  1. The department will propose moving the course from one GEP category to another; or
  2. The department will plan to revise the course/program to better align with the learning outcomes for the GEP category; or
  3. The department will request to have the GEP designation removed from the course/program.
  4. In the event that the department does not pursue any of the above options, and if there are still significant concerns about the alignment of the course/program with the GEP learning outcomes, the Assessment Coordinator, Director of General Education, and Chair of the GEC will bring the matter to the GEC for consideration and possible removal of the GEP designation.

Step 2a:

If the department decides to pursue option (a) above, then the department will complete the paperwork necessary to request a new GEP category designation for the course.  If approved, the course will then be assessed at the appropriate time in the GEP assessment cycle.

Step 2b:

If the department decides to pursue option (b) above, then the department will revise the course and submit a course portfolio the next time the course is offered (which may be outside the normal assessment cycle).  The Assessment Coordinator, Director of General Education, and the Chair of the GEC will evaluate the course portfolio and provide feedback to the department and instructor.  If the course revision appears to be successful, the course can proceed and will not be re-assessed until the next assessment cycle.  If the course portfolio for the revised course is still not aligning with the GEP learning outcomes, then the Assessment Coordinator, Director of General Education, and Chair of the GEC will bring the matter to the GEC for consideration and possible removal of the GEP designation.

Step 2c:

If the department decides to pursue option (c) above, the department will submit a memorandum to the GEC requesting that the GEP designation be removed from the course.

 

SECTION 8: REORGANIZING ACADEMIC UNITS

PROCEDURES FOR REORGANIZING ACADEMIC UNITS

(Departments, Divisions, Schools, Colleges, or Equivalent Units)

  1. Any academic unit as defined above, or a line administrator may initiate a proposal/plan for reorganization at UW-Stevens Point.
  2. A final proposal/plan for reorganization that changes reporting lines from academic units to dean and beyond must be submitted to the Executive Committee of the Common Council for its consideration.
  3. The Executive Committee of the Common Council shall submit proposals and plans for re-organization to the Common Council with sufficient time for the Senate to deliberate and make a recommendation to the Chancellor prior to the proposed date of implementation.
  4. The written proposal/plan for reorganization is expected to address the following items:
  1. A description of the proposed/planned reorganization, including appropriate organizational charts.
  2. A list of job responsibilities for new or modified administrative positions.
  3. A rationale which explains and supports the recommended organizational changes.
  4. A statement of support or opposition from any and/or all university employees affected by the proposed/planned reorganization.

PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN DEVELOPING THE PROPOSAL/PLAN

  1. All meetings should be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. In particular,
  1. all meetings should be publicly announced in advance, and
  2. minutes that include the action items approved in those meetings should be kept.
  1. All staff members whose units are directly affected by the proposed/planned reorganization should be consulted and their input sought throughout the planning process.

PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL AFTER RECEIVING THE PROPOSAL/PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION

  1. The proposal/plan will be distributed to the campus community and the Common Council will invite written input regarding the plan from any individual or unit on campus.
  2. The above input will be collated and appended to the proposal/plan.
  3. The plan/ proposal will be placed on the agenda for a meeting of the Common Council.