2007 Reaffirmation Teams :: 3.4.10 - 2007 Reaffirmation Teams

2007 Reaffirmation Teams

3.4.10 - 2007 Reaffirmation Teams

The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty

Compliance Judgment

Compliance

Narrative

The University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas) places primary responsibility for the quality and oversight of its educational programs with tenure-track faculty, disciplinary program heads, academic deans, and faculty governance committees. This responsibility is assigned to faculty by The University of Texas System (UT System) Board of Regents within its regulations on the formation of educational policy [1] and academic program approval standards [2] and by the university through Title III of its Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) [3] and various numbered memoranda that designate specific responsibilities to committees of the Academic Senate [4].

The Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) is charged with reviewing the policies and procedures of all educational programs of the university, with respect to their quality, feasibility, necessity, and consistency with established academic policies, standards, and goals. The purview of the CEP specifically includes, but is not limited to, all proposals for the assignment of university credit to new courses, all proposals for new programs, all catalog materials, and other academic policy issues referred to it by the Academic Council and/or Academic Senate. The committee publishes, with the approval of the Academic Senate, calendars for submission of proposals for new programs and catalog copy for approval, and addresses other academic policies referred by the Academic Senate or that the Academic Council considers appropriate [5]. The roles of the CEP and the Academic Senate are also addressed in the response to Principle 2.7.2 [6].

The Committee on the Core Curriculum (CCC) is charged to evaluate and make recommendations to the Academic Senate regarding the university-wide general education curriculum and its implications in terms of academic requirements for undergraduate admission and graduation, including transfer admission requirements [7]. The committee, in consultation with faculty and university administrators, reviews and approves the suitability of particular UT Dallas courses that are submitted to satisfy the university’s core curriculum requirements. It may also review lower-division courses that students submit to substitute for UT Dallas core courses offered by other public colleges and universities. The committee also monitors changes in state law and rules of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to ensure that UT Dallas’ core curriculum requirements are in compliance with statewide requirements for core curriculum. In carrying out these duties, CCC seeks advice from all interested parties in the university and calls timely hearings of the faculty concerned with the core curriculum [7]. Additional information about the role of the CCC is available in the response to Principle 3.5.1 [8].

All academic programs are reviewed periodically to evaluate their quality and their effectiveness in supporting the university’s mission [9]. A standing committee, the Program Review Committee (PRC), composed of members of UT Dallas faculty and academic administration, oversees the review process. The committee functions in cooperation with the executive vice president and provost (provost), under whose auspices academic program reviews are conducted. It maintains general oversight of the review process to assure its efficacy and uniformity, and one member of the PRC, designated the PRC monitor, participates directly in the process. In addition to responsibilities as a regular member of the review team, the PRC monitor has the additional duties of conferring with and reporting to the PRC and, on the basis of knowledge acquired as a member of the PRC, helping each review team ensure consistency of its individual review with the overall review process. During each program review, the scope of the academic program is investigated, including the qualifications of the faculty, the appropriateness of student learning outcomes, the rigor of the curriculum, and the overall assessment process. The entire PRC evaluates the operation of the review process on a continuing basis and makes an annual report to the provost and Academic Senate. In this report it recommends any modifications of policy or procedure regarding reviews it considers desirable. In addition, it consults with and advises the Provost on other aspects of reviews as requested [10]. Additional information on the program review process is available in the response to Principle 3.3.1.1 [11].

Ultimately, the faculty at the school and program level are responsible for the quality, content, and effectiveness of the curriculum. Each school has developed its own committee system to oversee curricular matters [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], and these committees actively participate in the biennial catalog review process. The faculty are also instrumental in the development and approval of all new academic programs as documented in the response to Principle 3.4.1 [19]. They also judge the effectiveness of the curriculum through evaluation of student learning outcomes associated with each academic degree program. The annual assessment process for each degree program requires faculty to participate in a review of the primary outcomes as well as the strategies for measuring progress toward those stated outcomes. The result is a collection of assessment reports that provide an overview of the health of each program. Minutes of faculty meetings document the discussion of possible improvements and/or changes in the curriculum to enhance student learning [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. To ensure that the faculty members identify what improvements are necessary, the assessment report for each degree program includes a section for identifying closing the loop activities [25]. For example, within the B.S. in speech-language, pathology and audiology 2006-07 program report (page 5), faculty identified two specific activities that require faculty investigation and evaluation. Specifically, the program head and faculty are charged to “investigate the difference in the students’ satisfaction reports on their attainment of learning goals reported on the exit interview and measures of student learning obtained through analysis of student performance on embedded examination questions and rubric-evaluated written material,” and the clinical faculty are asked to evaluate “students’ application of learning in the clinical realm” through “supervisor evaluation of hands on skills and written reports [26].” A more thorough discussion of UT Dallas’ assessment process and of its web-based assessment tool, AT6, is available in the response to Principle 3.3.1.1 [11].

Finally, individual faculty members, including the part-time faculty, participate in the process of developing course syllabi. The Academic Senate requires that each syllabus include course objectives that relate to the program objectives or student learning outcomes [27] [28] [29]. Individual faculty members submit their syllabi to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost’s assessment team, and the assessment team posts the syllabi online [30].

Supporting Documents

Footnote Document
[1]Series 40101, Board of Regents: Faculty Role in Educational Policy Formulation
PDF Document, 3 Pages, 25.05 KB (rule1050)
[2]UT System Board of Regents Rule 40307
PDF Document, 6 Pages, 37.45 KB (rule1083)
[3]UT Dallas Handbook of Operating Procedures Title III Chapter 21 Faculty Governance
PDF Document, 13 Pages, 33.97 KB (policy1115)
[4]Executive Vice President and Provosts Policy Memoranda Website Homepage
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 64.28 KB (statement1333)
[5]Policy Memorandum 78-III.21-11 Committee on Educational Policy
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 66.24 KB (policy1063)
[6]Principle 2.7.2 - Program Content (u208)
Link to UT Dallas 2007-ccr Compliance Certification Report
[7]POLICY MEMORANDUM 95-III.21-66 - Committee on the Core Curriculum Charge
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 65.22 KB (policy1060)
[8]Principle 3.5.1 - General Ed Competencies (u337)
Link to UT Dallas 2007-ccr Compliance Certification Report
[9]Program reviews completion dates and dates for next review - 20070423
PDF Document, 1 Page, 19.03 KB (review1002)
[10]Policy Memorandum 94-III.24-63 Academic Program Review
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 91.44 KB (policy1114)
[11]Principle 3.3.1.1 - Assessment of Educational Programs (u320)
Link to UT Dallas 2007-ccr Compliance Certification Report
[12]School of Arts and Humanities Bylaws
PDF Document, 7 Pages, 74.48 KB (bylaw1047)
[13]The Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science Bylaws
PDF Document, 19 Pages, 110.26 KB (bylaw1048)
[14]School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Bylaws
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 29.51 KB (bylaw1049)
[15]School of Management Bylaws
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 27.19 KB (bylaw1050)
[16]School of General Studies Bylaws Draft
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 27.24 KB (bylaw1062)
[17]School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences Bylaws
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 368.13 KB (bylaw1064)
[18]School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences Bylaws
PDF Document, 4 Pages, 270.46 KB (bylaw1065)
[19]Principle 3.4.1 - Learning Outcomes Approved by Faculty (u325)
Link to UT Dallas 2007-ccr Compliance Certification Report
[20]Faculty Meeting Agenda and Notes, Program Assessment in Public Administration - 16 February 2007
PDF Document, 8 Pages, 37.13 KB (minutes1017)
[21]Meeting Minutes Biology Faculty Meeting February 15, 2007
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 20.85 KB (minutes1079)
[22]Meeting Minutes Chemistry Faculty March 6,2007
PDF Document, 16 Pages, 203.78 KB (minutes1080)
[23]Meeting Minutes Science/Mathematics Education February 19,2007
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 22.80 KB (minutes1081)
[24]Meeting Minutes Psychological Sciences- PhD Program February 14, 2007
PDF Document, 2 Pages, 13.41 KB (minutes1082)
[25]Diagram Assessment Tool - Closing the Loop Section
PDF Document, 1 Page, 33.78 KB (diagram1093)
[26]B.S. in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology - FY07
PDF Document, 11 Pages, 35.19 KB (areport1166)
[27]Diagram Academic Senate - Syllabi Templates
PDF Document, 1 Page, 48.53 KB (diagram1023)
[28]Template: Syllabi Templates for Face to Face Course
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 29.11 KB (template1009)
[29]Template: Syllabi Template for Distance Learning Course
PDF Document, 5 Pages, 30.99 KB (template1010)
[30]UT Dallas Syllabi Quick Search example
PDF Document, 1 Page, 77.54 KB (chart1112)
Toggle Sidebar
(null clip target)