|
Big Sandy Community and Technical College (BSCTC) places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty. The role of the faculty is clearly defined in the local curriculum process and in KCTCS's Curriculum and Rules Development and Program Approval Process Manual for 2006-2007
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4].
Faculty are responsible for establishing new curriculum, revising existing curriculum, designing new courses, revising existing courses, deleting courses, and ensuring that course and/or program offerings fulfill the college's mission to provide learning experiences for those preparing for immediate entry into the workforce upon graduation, for those transferring to a baccalaureate institution, and for community members seeking to enhance their knowledge and skills
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4].
The role of the faculty in the curriculum development process is clearly defined. Faculty who wish to create courses, to make changes in existing courses, or to create new programs are responsible for following the approved process. Faculty will initiate the curriculum change based on recommendations by advisory committees, community or industry needs, or other relevant factors. They must also provide documentation of support for the change from faculty within the discipline. The documentation is forwarded to the Provost's office. The Provost will then forward the documentation to the local curriculum review committee (CRC). The local CRC is composed of elected members of the College and the Chair of the CRC is a member of the statewide Curriculum Review Committee. The local CRC seeks input from faculty. If the local CRC does not recommend the proposal, then all paperwork is returned to the submitting faculty with an explanation concerning the decision. If the CRC recommends the change, the proposal is then forwarded by the Provost to the President of the College. The President endorses the proposal which is given back to the Provost. The Provost will then forward the proposal to the System Chancellor's office. Once the proposal is at the System level, it will be reviewed by the statewide CRC committee and KCTCS council, which serve as peer review and advisory bodies. The curriculum proposal is returned to the College for approval by majority of faculty within the discipline
[1]
[2]
[5].
The process for the approval of ENG 282, International Films Studies, began with initiation by local English faculty
[6],
followed by local review and approval by local CRC on October 18, 2006
[7].
After notification, the Chancellor's Office initiated peer review through System CRC and ended with Senate Council on December 13, 2006
[8].
Feedback was sent to the college to conclude approval process. The course will be implemented in Fall 2007.
For a new program, the Program Curriculum Committee will convene. The curriculum needs will be identified and a single proposal will be formulated. This proposal will be sent to the college's Chief Academic Officer (CAO) for local review. If recommended by the CAO, the proposal will go through the local college approval process (same as curriculum process described above) with feedback provided to the Program Curriculum Committee. The Program Curriculum Committee will continue to receive peer review comments. Next the proposal is forwarded to the Chancellor's Office and from there to the System CRC. The proposal will then go to the Senate Council. From the Senate Council, the proposal will be sent to the CAO for local college approval. The college approval process will involve faculty from the discipline area. Following local approval, the proposal is sent to the Chancellor's Office and then to the KCTCS President. From the President's office the proposal is sent to the Board of Regents for approval
[2]
[5].
At the present time, BSCTC has not submitted any requests for new programs.
Faculty are responsible for providing programs of study that relate to the College's strategic goals of promoting excellence in teaching and learning, increasing student access and success, expanding diversity and global awareness, and expanding the economic development of communities and the Commonwealth
[9].
Faculty maintain oversight of educational programs through program reviews, analyses of completers, placements of graduates, employer surveys, and committee memberships at local and state levels.
Program reviews/annual plans are conducted annually
[10].
Faculty utilizes information received from various sources to evaluate courses and programs; such as, program advisory committees (which meet twice a year)
[11]
[12],
student evaluations
[13],
graduation rates, graduate follow-ups, employers satisfaction, licensure pass rates, learning outcome assessment testings. An example of utilizing learning outcome assessment testing is demonstrated in the course ECO 201. This implementation began with a revision of the course pre test to include more items related to recent economic events and applied principles. The results of a pre test and a post test administered to students enrolled in two sections of ECO 201 during the Fall 2006 semester were as follows:
For Eco 201 B001 Fall 2006: n=16, average=33.81438 Pre test
N=16, average=75.879 post test
For Eco 201 Boz1 Fall 2006: n=23, average=40.12 Pre test
N=22, average =77.43 Post test
Based on the pre test results the course material was revised to include student access to actual live data of stock market quotes of individual firms. By exposing students to this information, the goal was to have them more easily tie this information to the model of pure competition and its economic results. Since pure competition is the benchmark in analyzing the market structures, the course material was organized to lay the foundation for students to build upon further structures. Students' actual participation in asking questions about prices and volume trading of these securities being observed should reinforce basic economic concepts. Post test results indicated significant improvement.
Faculty are also required to complete a course syllabus for each course taught that includes approved course competencies identified by general education, program, option, and course specific guidelines, as well as a course outline and course structure
[14].
In addition, faculty complete an instructional improvement report that outlines any changes needed to be made in the course as a result of analyzing data from student evaluations. For example, an improvement plan submitted by an instructor in Spring 2006 for OST 110 noted "challenging the students seems to be one area with room for improvement." The instructor's plan for improvement in this area was to "revise course syllabus to reflect the timed writing portion of the final grade to be an average of the three highest timed writings for the semester." Previously, only the highest timed writing was selected for the final grade calculation. By revising the statement to include the "three" highest timings, students would be challenged to not only achieve an acceptable timed writing score, but also to maintain that score.
|
Section Home
