PROCESSES
Committees
Several committees are involved with the curriculum at United States University, either directly or as part of review and improvement planning.
Curriculum Committees
Program or college faculty curriculum committees write, review and approve PLOs and agree to general programmatic guidelines and expectations for the program courses. After courses are developed, built, and implemented, curriculum committees review course-based and program-based data such as surveys, PLO assessment results, external board or licensing pass rates, as well as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as persistence, retention, and graduation rates, to plan for the course and program improvements.
Assessment Task Force
Working with the Institutional Assessment Task Force, program faculty are responsible for creating annual PLO assessment plans, organizing any additional scoring faculty, participating in the blind scoring, leading the discussion of results with their curriculum and faculty committees, and writing the annual report and improvement plan. They will also be responsible for following up on the annual improvement plans, ensuring that changes are implemented, tracked, and scheduled for re-review. (See PLO Assessment Handbook for additional details.)
Program Review (Program Teams and Program Review Committee)
Program Directors and their Program Review Teams are also responsible for the self-study and improvement plan required from the institutional Program Review cycle (a minimum of once every five years). Key elements of the program review include a description of the program and its structure, a discussion of its pedagogical approach, an analysis of course and program data, particularly its PLO assessment results plans resulting therefrom, and an evaluation of its effectiveness of those plans. The purpose of the program review is to evaluate the quality and viability of a program as a whole with continuous improvement in mind.
Faculty also participate on a rotating basis in the Program Review Committee (PRC) as part of the peer-review process of other programs at the University. The PRC receives the self-studies, arranges external reviews with peers recommended by program faculty, and writes a Findings and Recommendations Report with finalized Improvement Plans (building on contributions from the Program Team and the Provost). The reports are shared both with the Programs and Executive Leadership as they agree to MOUs on any actions going forward that require institutional support. Final Program Review Reports and Improvement Plans are shared with the Faculty Senate.
Course Documentation
To support the University's effective communication and transparency goals, the program major and course information are shared with the public and students in multiple venues.
• Program Learning Outcomes are published on the university website, the University Catalog, and every Course Guide. PLOs also structure the program curriculum maps and any alignment documents maintained in support of disciplinary standards.
• Course Learning Outcomes are published in every Course Guide, related syllabus, and course shell in the LMS; they are also indicated in the program's curriculum map according to their alignments to PLOs. CLOs structure the course modules and are listed weekly in the Course Guides and course shells.
• Course Descriptions are published on the University website, the University Catalog, in every Course Guide, related syllabus, and course shell. They are available through the student portal when students register for classes.
Course Revisions
A course revision may occur when any of the following take place:
• Course is identified and scheduled for full revision by school (major revision)
• Out of print textbook(s) (minor revision)
• Technology change (minor or major revision)
• School-wide innovation (minor or major revision)
• Errors in the course (quick fix revision)
Major course revisions are scheduled and initiated by the schools and involve a collaboration amongst SMEs, faculty, Program Directors, and instructional designers. Full course revisions adhere to USUs course development guidelines and follow an instructional design process documented in the handbook and require 50% or more of the content updated. .
If upon review the school determines a course or specialization needs to be retired, the schools initiates the process to end date and retire the course(s).
Development and Build Process
The creation of courses at USU consists of two functions: development and building. Course development is a faculty-owned process. Course shell building and maintenance (in the LMS) is an administrative process.
Course Development Process
Program faculty (or at times, a contracted SME) work in a Course Guide template to develop course content. This includes almost all of the content of a course: written lectures or recorded videos, textbook reading information, linked readings, websites, or external video content, assignments in their various forms, instructions for external learning tools (math software, case study simulations, etc.), designed engagement opportunities, etc. The Course Guides also include sections for the designation of LMS settings (for uploadable assignments, quizzes, discussion forums, etc.). All academic decisions are made and recorded by the faculty in the Course Guides. Program faculty are also responsible for maintaining the document's institutional style to maintain consistency of student experience and efficiency of course building.
Course Building Process
Instructional Designers/builders transfer the Course Guides' content into Master shells in the LMS. College leadership is responsible for high-level quality assurance of both the Course Guides and the Master Shells, primarily in maintaining the five principles listed above, the consistency of the student experience, and the clarity and consistency of this work's documentation.