Updated for the February 2020 version of the course proposal form and updated to clarify administrative policy, 8/10/2020.
Both the CEHSP Academic Affairs Council (AAC) and the GPC has noticed that there have been some commonly occurring areas in which it requests revisions prior to approval. In January 2019, the AAC approved a FAQ document to address some of these issues. At the April 11, 2019 meeting, the GPC approved this adaptation of the AAC FAQ. Below is a summary of questions that the GPC feels frequently occur with graduate course proposals, as well. It may be useful for faculty writing proposals, Department Heads, Directors of Graduate Studies and departmental curriculum committee members to consider these questions when drafting or evaluating course proposals. The questions are often tied to specific items on the course proposal form or online addendum. The course proposal form referenced was last updated February 2020; and the on-line addendum last amended May 2017. The GPC will update this document to reflect the most current forms and policies for curriculum proposals, as well as to reflect guidance related to new questions suggested by faculty proposers or the GPC. Efforts will be made to make the AAC and GPC recommendations as consistent with each other as possible. The current version of this FAQ reflects updates made August 10, 2020 regarding changes in form versions and broader clarifications in CEHSP or UMD Academic Affairs policy.
Note that Department Heads must notify the Dean when a new course is being discussed and consult with her regarding the idea prior to a course proposal being written. A faculty sponsor should make sure their Department Head has had this discussion before developing the proposal. Make sure the idea has been vetted at both the Department and College levels before making the formal proposal. For the time being all new graduate course proposals must be budget neutral.
- Has the approved proposal or addendum form text been altered? The proposal and online addendum forms are formal parts of the curriculum process and as such the text in the standard forms should not be altered or reformatted. If it has been, it has to be put back into its original format before being sent to VCAA and therefore such changes add unnecessary work for college staff. For items 1-15 of the course proposal form, text should only go into the boxes provided on the right side of the form, nothing should be added to the boxes on the left side.
- Catalog Description: Does the language describing the course reflect the longevity of courses? Courses typically remain in the catalog for a decade or more and the GPC ensures that relevant sections of the course proposal reflect this longevity. Does the catalog description describe specifics that are likely going to be out-of-date quickly? Examples of things that have come up along these lines are references to specific theories, policies, software, technology, laws or statutes. Rather than referring to, for example, “Minnesota Statute 122A.60” or the “DSM-5” the catalog description might reference “relevant laws governing teacher development” or “contemporary psychiatric diagnostic systems”, respectively. This also goes for Conceptual Outline on the course proposal, the conceptual outline, although here it is easier to include some more specific details as examples.
- Terms Most Frequently Offered: Is the course proposed to be offered in the summer, but not fall or spring? Although CEHSP Administration strongly discourages undergraduate courses to be primarily or only offered in the summer session, unless there is a compelling reason related to the seasonality of the topic, there is more latitude for graduate courses. It is important, however, to supply a strong rationale for why the course is appropriate for the summer. Students have a more difficult time arranging financial aid for summer session courses and a course that might be required by a program in the summer places a burden on students. Faculty contracts also do not cover summer, so we cannot create a situation that compels faculty to teach a summer course that must be paid for outside of our regular budget. These concerns should be addressed in the rationale.
- How Often Will the Course be Offered: If the course is an elective, is it offered annually? CEHSP Administration currently, and for the foreseeable future, cannot support the offering of specific non-required graduate courses annually unless they embody an agreed upon strategic advantage for recruitment, retention, or speedy completion of a graduate program. If so, explain how it does this in “What is the rationale for proposing this course”.
- How will this course be scheduled?: Is the scheduling pattern in appropriate for the course? Item 10 is primarily for the purposes of determining how a course is to be scheduled in the system and also has ramifications for how faculty workload is determined. A 3 credit course scheduled as “LEC” could, in practice involve the equivalent of three 50-minute sessions per week that primarily involve discussion and have no formal lectures. For courses that are non-field work/independent study, the default should be “LEC” with a rationale provided if a “LAB” or “DIS” section is also needed or needed instead.
- Is there a final exam?: Should the proposal for a 5XXX-level course indicate there will be a final exam? This part of the course proposal is often misunderstood. The Academic Affairs policy states that all “all classes that normally permit undergraduates to enroll” (including 5XXX-level courses) should have a final examination. This, however, need not be a formal test and could be a paper, performance, presentation, etc. Any course that has “a final graded component or end of term evaluation that assesses the level of student achievement of one or more course objectives” should indicate that there will be a final exam. As courses, and therefore course proposals, are not instructor-specific and since under academic freedom instructors may choose what format a “final exam” may take, it is strongly encouraged that for any non-IND/FWK courses a final exam is indicated in the proposal. If a course will be available for undergraduate credit at the 5XXX-level this should be addressed.
- Prerequisites: Two sets of questions often come up in relation to course prerequisites.
- Are the prerequisites unnecessarily restrictive for the course? Do the specified courses involve knowledge or skills that are essential for success in the proposed course? Could the course be available as an elective for other programs that likely would be interested in it if the prerequisites were less restrictive?
- Are the prerequisites too open for the demands of the course? For graduate courses, especially those at the 5XXX-level that undergraduates could take, are the prerequisites restrictive enough to minimize the number of students who are unprepared for relatively advanced study? Is there a compelling professional or licensure concern that would exclude people who are not a part of a specific type of graduate program that would provide the appropriate context for the course? The concern is that students may attempt to cobble together courses to use for professional credentialing and miss important things needed for competent or ethical practice because different programs emphasize them in different places. Instructor consent with example of factors to be considered may address this concern.
- Conceptual Outline and Topics: The conceptual outline is a common place for questions to arise for the GPC.
- What does ____ mean? The GPC must determine if the conceptual outline is appropriate for the level and nature of the course and so they must be able to understand it at a basic level even if they are not in the same field. It also must be something the AVCAA for graduate education and research can understand. It is strongly encouraged that the outline be written with the educated layperson in mind as the target audience. Spell out acronyms and explain or avoid jargon.
- Is there a clear outline of the topics that would typically be covered as core aspects of the course? Can the committee tell what the breadth and depth of the core topics will be? Keep in mind that different instructors may approach the topics in different ways.
- Are the topics appropriate for the level (5XXX, 6XXX, 7XXX, 8XXX, 9XXX), credits and format (FWK, IND, LEC, etc.) of the course? In general it is anticipated that courses at higher levels will provide more depth on a topic and will be more academically demanding than courses at lower levels. The fewer credits a course is offered for the fewer topics would be anticipated. Lecture courses are anticipated to provide a conceptual, research or theoretical context rather than being purely skills or application-based.
- Describe Student Learning Outcomes and Associated Assessment Methods: In addition to the Conceptual Outline, the Learning Objectives and Assessment Methods are another major source of questions by the GPC.
- Is there a learning objective associated with each major element of the conceptual outline?
- Are there learning objectives stated that are not clearly or explicitly related to a topic in the conceptual outline?
- Do the learning objectives complete the stem “Students completing this course will be able to _______”?
- Are the learning objectives stated in measurable terms?
- Across the range of learning objectives for the course, are the verbs used covering the range of complexity appropriate for the course? Bloom’s Taxonomy is a useful reference here.
- For each learning objective, is there an assessment method specified that is appropriate for the measurable verb in the learning outcome? Is it clear what would be evaluated and how? For example, “course discussion” or “participation” is vague, but “written submitted discussion questions” or “participation evaluation rubric” suggests a systematic way of evaluating students.
- Describe Course Instructional Materials: Are there specific examples of instructional materials such as readings referenced? Although individual faculty will pick their own materials appropriate for the learning outcomes and course materials will change over time, it is expected that specific example readings or other materials that would be appropriate for the planned course will be referenced here to give the GPC a sense of what is planned and if it appears appropriate for the level of the course. Provide a full reference including year of publication in order to establish that the course was developed in the context of the most contemporary materials.
- How Will Your Program(s) be Affected by the Proposed New Course or Course Change?: There are many questions that frequently occur about impacted programs.
- Will the program(s) the course is a part of change in a way that would require updated catalog language for that program? If so, how?
- If the course impacts any other department’s programs (e.g., uses prerequisites from other department, is planned to be used as a course in another department’s program, impacts a course in your program that is used by another department’s program (e.g., course in program, prerequisite for a course, etc.)), have the appropriate people in the other department been consulted? This involves the people who have responsibility for the scheduling and budgeting of the program affected and the authority to authorize approvals on behalf of their unit. At a minimum this will involve the Department Head, but may also involve DGSes (essential for impacted graduate courses in other units), program directors/coordinators, or Associate Deans (for departments outside of CEHSP). Document these approvals in this item before sending the proposal to the GPC.
- Describe Financial and Staffing Implications: What is the plan to staff this course? All courses offered obviously must be staffed and staffing has financial implications, so this item should never have “none” or “not applicable” as an answer. Will a new hire be required and has it been approved? Will a currently offered course be retired to make room for the new course? Will fewer sections of an existing course be offered or will the new course be paired with an existing course on a rotation? Currently, and for the foreseeable future, CEHSP Administration will not approve new courses or course changes unless they are budget neutral or produce a net savings in the budget. CEHSP Administration reserves the right- especially in departments that must offer courses for undergraduate programs but not exclusively for programs with a relatively high number of credits - to not approve new electives unless a course is removed from the program. Department Heads should strategize with the Dean plans to offer new electives and how to staff new required courses.
- Instructor Contact Hours per Week: Are the instructor contact hours not consistent with the current workload protocols or other academic policies? AVC Pepper (October 3, 2019) sent the following guidance to Associate Deans regarding undergraduate course proposals: “be sure what is listed there conforms to the approved protocols. This is relevant primarily in cases of things like internships, courses with labs, fieldwork, directed readings, and so forth.” Although this was in reference to undergraduate courses it also applies to graduate course proposals.
- Online addendum: Is an online delivery format selected in “How will this course be delivered”? If so, an online addendum must also be submitted. Some common questions that come up with online addenda are:
- Could a more general term be used instead of a specific program or product being mentioned? Rather than referring to a specific platform or program like “Canvas” or “Skype” use terms such as “Learning Management System” or “video conferencing”, respectively.
- Online Addendum items, 3, 5, 6, and 8: How will specific information of relevance to online courses in particular be communicated to students? Is helpful, illustrative example syllabus verbiage provided? The GPC looks to the addendum to get a sense of an example of how instructors would communicate issues related to being in an online course. To facilitate this, it is recommended that proposals provide example syllabus verbiage that gives an idea of what we would tell students about access to library (online addendum item 3), ITSS (online addendum item 5), disability (online addendum item 8) resources, and appropriate online behavior (online addendum item 6).