2.1 Policy StatementÌý

Non-credit courses and programs are not offered for college credit. They provide professional and personal enrichment opportunities. Non-credit programs are often shorter and more condensed than credit-bearing certificate programs. TheyÌýprovide focused learning opportunities for individualsÌýwho want toÌýacquireÌýspecific knowledge, learn new skills, or pursue personal interests free from the constraints of earning college credit. TheyÌýfacilitateÌýthe swift development of competencies, serving both professional advancement and personal enrichment purposes. Participants receive certificates of completion and/or digital badges. Some non-credit programs may lead to industry-recognized credentials. Ìý

Non-credit offerings may be delivered by academic or administrative faculty at 91ÌÒÉ« outside of their requiredÌýcourseloadÌýor by qualified individuals contracted specifically to offer Workforce Development programming.ÌýÌý

Workforce Development courses or programsÌýthat wouldÌýcarry academic credit are reviewed and approved through the Academic Curriculum Review process.Ìý

2.2ÌýPurpose of Review ProcessÌý

The purpose of the review and approval process for non-credit courses and programs is to ensure that:ÌýÌý

1. Programming is aligned with 91ÌÒɫ’s mission and local workforce needs.

2. There is appropriate evidence of market/enrollment demand and financial viability.

3. Appropriate resources are available to support effective delivery and achievement of meaningful program outcomes.

4. The non-credit curriculum incorporates appropriate levels of rigor.

5. Potential impacts on existing programs (including academic credit-bearing programs) are considered.Ìý

2.2.1 Review Process and CriteriaÌý

To introduce non-credit offerings, the proposer completes the Non-credit Curriculum Proposal Form. The review process includes the steps:Ìý

1. The Non-credit Curriculum Review Committee consists of:Ìý

a. One member appointed by the President’s Office.Ìý

b. One academic faculty member appointed by Academic Faculty Senate.Ìý

c. One member from Academic Affairs appointed by the Provost.Ìý

d. The Director of Workforce Development (or designee).Ìý

2. The Committee’s recommendation is forwarded to the Provost for final review and a decision to approve or deny the proposal.Ìý

2.2.2 TimelineÌý

Proposals areÌýsubmittedÌýonline and may be approved by unanimous consensus via email. If unanimous consensus is not reached, a meeting of the Non-credit Curriculum Review Committee will be scheduled within 30 calendar days of submission. Incomplete proposals may be returned for revisions; a review meeting will not be scheduled until the proposal has been completed and resubmitted.Ìý

2.3ÌýAssessment and Program ReviewÌý

For internal monitoring and quality control, non-credit programs will regularly collect assessment data to evaluate the program’s effectiveness andÌýidentifyÌýany needed improvements. The Department of Workforce Development will complete an abbreviated program review of each program every five years, focusing on the factorsÌýidentifiedÌýin 2.1 above. The final report will beÌýsubmittedÌýby the Director of Workforce Development to Academic Affairs for review. The Board of Regents does not require that reports onÌýnon-credit-bearingÌýprograms beÌýsubmittedÌýto NSHE.ÌýÌý

2.4ÌýRelated InformationÌý

– Non-credit Curriculum Proposal FormÌý

2.4.1 Revision HistoryÌý

– Approved by Dr. Molly Appel on 3/19/2024; Dr. Sarah Frey on 6/06/2024; and President DeRionne Pollard on 10/8/2024Ìý

The post AC 2: Non-credit Curriculum Review appeared first on 91ÌÒÉ«.

3.1: Course Designations and Number of CreditsÌý

Internship for credit may be run as:ÌýÌý

– Courses establishedÌýin the NSHE Common Course Numbering system.Ìý

– Special topics courses.Ìý

– Independent study.Ìý

Departments orÌýschools may decide to run a course as an independent study if the minimum number of students to financially sustain the course is not met. Provost permission isÌýrequiredÌýto run a course that is not self-supporting. Courses may be run with students enrolled in different numbers of credits. This requires special set-up with the Registrar’s Office before the start of the term.ÌýÌý

An internship is not necessarily a capstone but can be used as a capstone at the discretion of the faculty and dean.Ìý

3.1.1 Number of CreditsÌý

The number of credits a student earns should follow these guidelines for a full semester:Ìý

For courses in shorter terms, such asÌýa 6-, 8-, or 14-week sessions, the guidelines should be used toÌýdetermineÌýthe number of hours per weekÌýrequiredÌýat the placement site.ÌýÌý

The following examples provide hypothetical weekly schedules of internship and academic time accumulating to reach the totals in the table:ÌýÌý

1. 3 credits: Intern spends one 8-hour or two 4-hour sessions at a placement site per week, attends a weekly 90-minute class session, and completes roughly 3 hours of academic work assigned by the instructor. Total = average of 12.5 hours per week. Ìý

2. 4 credits: Intern spends 12 hours at a placement site per week, attends a 3-hour class session every other week, and completes 4 hours of work assigned by the instructor per week. Total = 17.5 hours of work per week on average. Ìý

3. 5 credits: Intern spends 20 hours per week at the placement site, attends weekly 1-hour class sessions, and completes 3 hours of coursework per week. Total = 24 hours of work per week on average. Ìý

4. 6 credits: Intern spends 20 hours at the placement site, attends a weekly 3-hour class, and completes 6 hours of academic work each week. Total = 29 hours of work per week on average.Ìý

These guidelines are flexible and may change based on student availability, instructor needs, and the goals of each program. Students may complete more internship hours than they receiveÌýcredit forÌýdue to programmatic limitations.Ìý

3.2 Eligibility to Teach Internships for CreditÌý

All academic faculty, full- or part-time, are eligible to teach internships for credit with approval from their chair or dean.ÌýÌý

3.3 Eligibility to Enroll in Internships for CreditÌý

Prerequisites for internships for credit areÌýstatedÌýin the academic catalog (for established courses) or may be decided by the course instructor in collaboration with the chair or dean (forÌýspecial topicsÌýor independent study courses). Some placement sites requireÌýadditionalÌýscreening such as background checks, drug screening, or interviews. The cost of these expenses may be the responsibility of the intern. Interns must sign a liability waiver toÌýparticipateÌýin an internship for credit.ÌýÌý

3.4 Selection of Placement SitesÌý

Placement sites may be for-profit or non-profit organizations or businesses that exist in brick-and-mortar facilities or in an online virtual space (such as an online news organization, political blog, or digital repository).Ìý

Placement sites cannot be organizations or businesses where a student intern is already employed unless the internship is in a separate division, the intern will develop unique skills, and the internship takes place at different times from the hours when the intern is already employed and compensated.ÌýÌý

The instructor or an appointed designee from the Division of Academic Affairs must assess and approve each placement site when the first internship at the site isÌýestablished. This includes ensuring that the placement site will provideÌýappropriate supervisionÌýfrom a qualified professional and that the business or organization has been registered and licensed at the state, city, or county level. Placement sites that are used repeatedly do not requireÌýadditionalÌýsite visits or approval but may be visited at the instructor’s discretion. New supervisors at a placement site meet with the instructor.ÌýÌý

A placement site representative must sign a Site Agreement Form and be willing to collaborate with the instructor to develop a learning plan.ÌýÌý

The course instructor is the primary liaison to the placement site supervisorÌýregardingÌýstudent interns. A representative from the Division of Academic Affairs willÌýbe responsible forÌýcollecting and storingÌýliabilityÌýwaiversÌýand Site Agreement Forms and mayÌýfacilitateÌýback-end communicationsÌýregardingÌýestablishingÌýanÌýinternship.Ìý

3.5 Mandatory Training for InternsÌý

Interview and résuméÌýassistanceÌýis available through the Career Services Center (CSC); these services are optional, but encouraged, for students interested in enrolling in an internship.ÌýÌý

The CSC provides required trainingÌýtoÌýinterns. Training takes place in the weeks before and at the start of the term and includes workshops on professionalism, boundaries, and workplace ethics. Students mustÌýparticipateÌýin the CSC training unless they receive a waiverÌýstatingÌýthat the instructor will lead the training as a part of the course.ÌýÌýÌý

Training provided by the placement site isÌýdeterminedÌýby the site. Hours spent in placement site training are counted as internship hours.ÌýÌý

3.6 Academic RequirementsÌý

Many factors canÌýimpactÌýthe value ofÌýinternshipsÌýand theÌýUniversityÌýand the placement site should take proactive steps to maximize the quality of an internship experience. Legitimate internship experiences must result in significant learning gains by the intern and may not simply be general labor conducted by a student. The U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division provides guidelines for internships that must be considered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010).ÌýÌý

Internships for credit are a mechanism for students to apply theory and knowledge gained in their coursework and to enhance their education. ForÌýoptimalÌýlearning to occur, there must be an understanding onÌýthe part of theÌýplacement site to mentor the student, as well as academic programming occurring in parallel to the student’s on-site internship.Ìý

3.6.1 Required Curriculum Components from the Placement SiteÌý

An individualized learning plan will be developed collaboratively by the instructor and placement site and signed by the intern. It should be completed no later than the third week of the semester of the internship for credit (and sooner for accelerated terms).Ìý

3.6.2 Required Curriculum Components from the NS InstructorÌý

While academic programsÌýare responsible forÌýsupporting the infrastructure of internships, each course instructor is primarily responsible for developing the curriculum for students engaging in their internship-for-credit course. Students need to engage in significant reflection on their internship experiences throughout the semester. Instructors meet withÌýinterns on a regular basis, require assignments (such as research papers, analyses, or oral presentations), and provide assignment feedback throughout the semester.Ìý

3.6.3 Assessing Students’ PerformanceÌý

Whether an internship for credit receives aÌýletterÌýgrade or an S/U grade is at the discretion of the academic program that developed the course (for existing orÌýspecial topicsÌýcourses) or the instructor (forÌýanindependentÌýstudy).ÌýÌý

The instructor should develop an intern assessment for theÌýplacementÌýsite supervisor to complete at the mid-term and end of the semester. This assessment of theÌýstudent’sÌýperformance at the placement site should not account for more than 50% of theÌýstudent’sÌýgradeÌýinÌýthe course. TheÌýremainderÌýof the grade should be based on the academic components of the course that were led by the instructor. The completed mid-term and end-of-term assessment should be saved in the instructor’s records.Ìý

3.7 Assessing Placement SitesÌý

Interns complete an evaluation of the placement site, which is shared with the instructor and the Director of the CSC. Poor reviews of placement sites may lead to changes inÌýsubsequentÌýinternship experiences at the placement site or termination of use of that site.ÌýÌý

3.8 Terminating anÌýInternshipÌý

An intern may be removed from a placement site priorÌýbeforeÌýthe end of the semester if requested by the site or by NS. The placement site may dismiss an intern if their performance is unsatisfactory or disruptive. NS may remove an intern from a placement site if, in NS’s judgment, the supervision does not meet the intern’s needs. Issues related to anÌýintern’sÌýpotential dismissal or removal will beÌýsubmittedÌýin writing and discussed by theÌýappropriate siteÌýsupervisor and NS, andÌýappropriate remedialÌýaction should be considered prior toÌýremomvalÌýor dismissal.ÌýÌý

If a student is removed from an internship for credit, placement at another site or acceptance into a future internship for credit will be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the course instructor, dean or department chair, and a representative of the Division of Academic Affairs. Published deadlines for course withdrawal and petition processes apply.ÌýÌý

3.9 TuitionÌý

Students must pay all tuition and fees for courses used as an internship for credit.ÌýÌý

3.10 Intern CompensationÌý

Compensating interns is at the discretion of the placement site. Under federal law, academic credit cannot be used as compensation in place of payment from the company for student work at an internship; the academic credit an intern receivesÌýis forÌýsupplementary work under the supervision of an NS instructor. For-profit sites that use interns without providing financial compensation must sign a Site Agreement Form that ensures they are aware of the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division guidelines for internships under the Fair Labor Standards Act (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010). These guidelines require that unpaid internships meet these criteria:ÌýÌý

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is like training which would be given in an educational environment.Ìý

2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern.Ìý

3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff.Ìý

4. The employer providing the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.Ìý

5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and Preview (opens in a new tab)

6. The placement site and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.Ìý

3.11 Related InformationÌý

– Liability waiver formÌý

– Site Agreement Form to be signed by placement site supervisor and NS instructorÌý

– Learning plan to be completed by placement site and instructor and signed by intern by the third week of the semester of the internshipÌý

– Evaluation of internÌý

– Evaluation of placement siteÌý

– U.S. Department of Labor. (2010). Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Fact Sheet #71). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ìý

– National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2011). Position Statement: U.S. Internships—A Definition and Criteria to Assess Opportunities and Determine the Implications for Compensation.Ìý

3.11.1 Revision HistoryÌý

• Approved by Dr. Joanna Shearer on 4/16/2015; Dr. Erika Beck on 2/13/2025; and President Bart Patterson on 5/12/2015.ÌýÌý

The post AC 3: Internships for Academic Credit appeared first on 91ÌÒÉ«.

4.1: Purpose

NS is committed to the principle that the selection of textbooks and supplemental material is the right and responsibility of the faculty member assigned to teach each course. These rights and responsibilities are subject to limitations allowed in this policy.

4.2 Guiding Principles in Materials Selection

Consistent with the mission of NS, faculty should consider the following when adopting textbooks and supplemental materials:

– Where possible, consider lower-cost, high-quality options such as older editions, online materials, eBooks, open educational resources, three-ring binder formats, and/or readers.

– Use the same textbook edition and supplemental materials for consecutive semesters, ideally for at least two years. This allows students to resell books to our bookstore or sell them to other students after the course ends.

– When possible, use Canvas to deliver material electronically in compliance with fair use and copyright laws.

– When possible, provide reserve copies of textbooks and supplemental materials to the library for loan to students.

Faculty must comply with the following when adopting textbooks and supplemental materials:

– Submit orders as early as possible, and no later than the school/department deadline, to allow the bookstore to order used copies.

– Ensure all adopted textbooks and supplemental materials will be used during the class. Avoid using bundled items unless students will use the entire bundled package.

– Select textbooks and supplemental material that meet accessibility standards (such as being readable by a screen reader, appropriate color contrast).

4.3 Selection Process

Within the timeframe and procedures established by the school/department, each faculty member will select the required textbooks and supplemental materials appropriate for their courses.

Each school/department may, at the dean or chair’s discretion, select the required textbook and any supplemental materials for courses taught by full-time faculty who have not submitted an order by the established deadline, as well as for courses taught by adjunct faculty.

Deans and department chairs should not place undue influence on faculty members regarding the selection of course materials.

Programs or disciplines are not required to choose a standard textbook for courses. However, full-time faculty within a program or discipline may designate a standard textbook for courses taught by multiple faculty members. Decisions related to standardization should be made in consultation with all full-time faculty teaching the course and with consideration to the guiding principles above.

4.4 Compensation and Royalties

Receiving compensation other than royalties for adopting a textbook or supplemental materials may be unprofessional and unethical. Receiving usual and customary payment for reviewing textbooks or supplemental materials is acceptable.

4.4.1 Authors Assigning Their Own Text

There are no ethical problems with faculty authors assigning their own textbook or supplementary material provided that the selection is consistent with this policy. If a faculty member wishes to adopt a textbook or supplementary material they authored, these criteria must be met:

1. The published books must be properly copyrighted by the author(s).

2. The published books must be available for open sale.

3. The faculty member does not make sales directly to students.

4. The published books assigned as a textbook in a course are approved by the dean.

4.5 Related Information

– Faculty Request to Assign Self-Authored Textbook Form

– NSHE (NSHE Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 14)

4.5.1 Revision History

• Approved by Dr. Serge Ballif on 5/08/2020; Dr. Vickie Shields on 5/15/2020; and President Bart Patterson on 5/27/2020.

The post AC 4: Course Materials Selection appeared first on 91ÌÒÉ«.

5.1: Initial PlacementsÌý

When a student is admitted to NS, the University determines their initial placement into math and English Composition courses based on a review of appropriate materials. The NSHE Handbook (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 1.2.c) allows students to complete additional placement testing to improve their initial placement.

NS does not charge students for placement testing.

The University follows the benchmarks in the NSHE Handbook (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 1.2) for determining college-ready math and English Composition placements.

5.2 Math Placement

NS uses three methods for making initial placements into math courses:

1. The default placement is MATH 120E/20 or MATH 126E/26, depending on major. Students should speak to an advisor about which course is appropriate for their degree.

2. Incoming students are strongly encouraged to submit SAT or ACT math scores. An appropriate score can change their placement from the default placement to MATH 120, MATH 126, or MATH 181, depending on major; required scores are published in the academic catalog.

3. Transfer students who have successfully completed a college-level math course at another institution will be placed into a math course after review of their official transcripts and evaluation of course equivalency.

5.2.1 Raising Initial Math Placements

Students can use EdReady to attempt to place into a math course above their initial placement. EdReady is a free learning platform that allows students to refresh and strengthen their math knowledge. Students are encouraged to begin EdReady as soon as they are admitted. EdReady goals for MATH 120 and for MATH 126 are available in the directions on the NS EdReady website.

EdReady scores must be submitted to mathplacement@nevadastate.edu at least 5 days before the start of the term; while their placement can be changed, the University cannot guarantee that a seat will be available in the appropriate course.

5.3 English Composition Placement

NS uses these methods for making initial placements into English Composition courses:

1. First-year students are strongly encouraged to submit ACT English or SAT Evidence-Based Reading/Writing scores. There is no minimum score to enroll in ENG 100. Students who meet the placement thresholds will be placed into ENG 101 or ENG 102. Required ACT and SAT scores are published in the NS academic catalog and Title 4, Chapter 16 of the NSHE Handbook.

2.Transfer students who have successfully completed an English Composition course at another NSHE institution will be placed into a Composition course based on their transfer course.

3. Transfer students who have successfully completed an English Composition course at a non-NSHE institution must contact the Registrar’s Office. The Registrar will oversee evaluation of the student’s coursework for appropriate placement.

4. Students who do not submit ACT or SAT scores may take the Directed Self-placement Survey. Students who do not submit ACT or SAT scores and do not take the Directed Self-placement Survey will be placed into ENG 100 or 116.

a. The Directed Self-Placement Survey is for initial placement only. Once a student enrolls in, and starts, an English Composition course, only successfully completing that course will allow the student to enroll in the next course in the Composition series; the Directed Self-placement Survey will not be accepted in place of a passing grade in a prerequisite Composition course.

b. Students must complete the Directed Self-placement Survey no later than the first day of classes for their first semester of composition. However, they are encouraged to complete the DSP Survey as early as possible, as last-minute changes may be limited if course sections are full.

5. While NS no longer offers Accuplacer as a placement method, students with existing Accuplacer scores can submit them for placement. They should contact the Academic Advising Center for information about required scores.

5.3.1 Raising Initial Composition Placements

Students who receive an initial placement based on ACT or SAT scores or transfer credits can use the Directed Self-placement Survey to place into a higher Composition course. The survey allows students to assess their knowledge and skills and self-select the level of English Composition they want to enroll in. The following restrictions apply:

1. Students may use the Directed Self-placement Survey before the start of their first term at NS. Once their first term at NS has begun, this option is no longer available.

2. Students who place themselves into a course cannot change their placement to a higher-level course once the self-placed course has begun.

3. After completing or withdrawing from a self-placed English Composition course, a student may enroll in a lower-level Composition course.

5.4 Spanish Language Placement

The default placement for Spanish coursework is SPAN 113: Elementary Spanish I. No placement exam is required to enroll in SPAN 113. Heritage speakers who have regressed in Spanish reading and writing skills may self-place into SPAN 226.

5.4.1 Raising Initial Spanish Placement

Students who wish to place into a higher course may take a placement exam to determine their appropriate placement. Placement exams are available to NS students in the Spanish Language Placement Canvas shell.

1. Students may take each level of the test or take the specific test they believe is suitable for their level of mastery. A score of 75% or higher is required to pass a level.

2. NS offers six placement exams, corresponding to SPAN 113, 114, 213, 214, 301, and 302. Placement will correspond to the lowest level exam passed. For instance, if a student passes the exam for SPAN 213 but does not pass the exam for SPAN 214, the student will be placed into SPAN 213.

3. Placement exams are for course placement purposes only. Students do not earn credits for passing an exam.

4. Students are encouraged to complete the Spanish Language Placement exam as early as possible. Course changes depend on the availability of seats in the appropriate course, and may not be possible in the upcoming term if all seats are full.

5.5 Related Information

• Spanish Language Placement Canvas pageÌý

5.5.1 Revision History

• Approved by Dr. Vickie Shields on 9/09/2020 and President Bart Patterson on 11/10/2020.

The post AC 5: Student Placement Testing (Undergraduates) appeared first on 91ÌÒÉ«.

POLICY NAME: Existing Academic Policy Review
OWNER: Office of the Provost
Email: provost@nevadastate.edu
Phone: 702-992-2600
CATEGORY: Academic Affairs/Faculty
POLICY ID#: AA 11
EFFECTIVE DATE: 4/7/2022
VIEWING/DOWNLOADING OPTIONS:
Web – Formatted (this page)
Download Policy

POLICY STATEMENT

91ÌÒÉ« (NS) reviews Existing Academic Programs pursuant to policies of the Nevada Board of Regents. Reviews are conducted under the direction of the Office of the Provost and are submitted to 91ÌÒɫ’s president, the NSHE Office, and the Board of Regents.

DEFINITIONS

Academic Program: Instructional program leading toward a certificate or degree.

DFWI Rate: Percentage of students in a course receiving a letter grade of D, F, Withdraw (W), or Incomplete (I).

Existing Academic Program: Academic Program that has been offered by 91ÌÒÉ« for a minimum of ten (10) years.

Faculty: Used to designate full-time and part-time academic Faculty. The text of this policy specifies any areas or stages of the review in which only full-time Faculty may participate.

Form B: NSHE template used for existing program review summaries.

Program Review Committee (PRC): Committee appointed by a dean to review a program and complete the Program Review Report and Form B.

Working Day: Monday through Friday when College classes are scheduled and in session during fall and spring semesters.

PROCEDURES

I.ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Purpose of Academic Program Reviews

Periodic review of existing Academic Programs is required by the Board of Regents (Handbook Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 6); criteria to be used in the review of existing programs shall include the following: quality, need/demand for the program, relation to the institutional mission, cost, relationship to other programs in the System, student outcomes, and quality and adequacy of resources such as library materials, equipment, space, and nonacademic services.

Program review is also undertaken as part of the continual improvement efforts that are tied to the accreditation self-evaluation cycle established by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). The goal of program reviews is to enhance the quality of Academic Programs by providing a detailed analysis that identifies areas of strength and areas for improvement. The review is holistic in nature, and is viewed as the culmination of different assessment methods that, taken together, provide a comprehensive evaluation of the program that facilitates improvement and strengthens the alignment between and fulfillment of the missions and strategic plans of the Academic Program, school, and the institution as a whole.

An essential element of an Existing Academic Program review is the identification and evaluation of student learning outcomes as an indicator of program effectiveness. Accordingly, key findings from our annual program of outcomes assessment are integrated into the evaluation and recommendations furnished by the report. Existing Academic Program reviews also provide information for curricular and budgetary planning decisions. Existing Academic Reviews must include both quantitative and qualitative measures of effectiveness.

Existing Academic Program reviews include Faculty input and a data-driven analysis of the Academic Program’s quality and effectiveness. Existing Academic Program Review Reports are produced for the Board of Regents every 10 years, and reflect the culmination of the ongoing evaluation and assessment conducted of every program. Programs accredited by a discipline-specific accrediting body are reviewed in accordance with the review cycle established by the accreditor, not to exceed ten (10) years between Academic Program reviews. Existing Academic Programs cannot be required to undergo review more often than once every ten (10) years unless requested by the provost or required by external accrediting agencies. Academic units may voluntarily conduct Academic Program reviews more frequently than scheduled.

The Program Review Committee for each Academic Program makes recommendations to the dean and provost regarding a ten-year plan for the program, strategies for successful growth, and plans for improvements based on the results of the review, all while maintaining a clear connection with institutional and school-based strategic plans.

II.ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Existing Academic Program Review Process

A. Office of the Provost notifies the appropriate dean of a scheduled Academic Program review.

B. Dean appoints a Program Review Committee (PRC) and designates one (1) member to serve as chair. The PRC Chair works with the dean, associate dean, and Office of Institutional Effectiveness to gather necessary materials (e.g., syllabi, course descriptions, learning outcome maps) for the Program Review and shares these materials with all PRC members.

1. The dean may appoint a single PRC to complete more than one program review, if appropriate.
2. The PRC shall consist of a minimum of two (2) Faculty members, at least one of whom must be from the program under review.
3. The PRC chair oversees and monitors the Academic Program Review process.

C. The Office of Institutional Research (IR) generates reports on key program metrics, including total enrollment, growth over time, DFWI rates, student demographics, senior exit survey data, graduation rates, course evaluation ratings, and other data gathered as part of ongoing program assessment efforts. The Office of the Provost will ensure the PRC has access to student learning outcomes assessment results, which measure student mastery of program outcomes.

D. The PRC reviews program materials, analyzes relevant data, and prepares an Existing Program Review Report as well as Form B.

1. A self-study prepared for discipline-specific accreditation may satisfy this requirement. If an Academic Program has recently undergone such a review, the PRC chair will confer with the dean, who will verify with the Office of the Provost whether the accreditation report is sufficient to fulfill NSHE’s Existing Academic Program review requirement.

E. The PRC chair submits the Existing Program Review Report to the dean.

F. The dean reviews the report, completes the final summary, and forwards it, along with the dean’s comments (if any), to the provost.

G. The provost (or designee) reviews the report and returns a copy, along with any comments, suggestions, or feedback, to the PRC.

H. The dean responds to comments and recommendations from the provost. The revised report is then submitted to the provost.

I. The provost issues a letter of completion of the review process to the dean, including summarizing recommendations for improvement.

J. The provost submits each Existing Program Review Report and Form B to NSHE and the Board of Regents.

K. The PRC submits an Existing Program Review Progress Report updating the Office of the Provost on actions taken to address recommendations.

ÌýIII.ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Timeline

If an extension is necessary, the PRC Chair will send a request to the dean, who will forward the request, along with the dean’s recommendation and comments, to the provost. The decision to approve an extension rests with the provost (or designee).

IV.ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Responsibilities

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

• Schedule of Existing Program Reviews
• Existing Program Review Report Template
• NSHE Form B: Program Review
• Existing Program Review Progress Report Template

RELATED INFORMATION

• NSHE Handbook Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 6
• NSHE of program approvals

HISTORY

Replaces Academic Program Review document.

APPROVALS

Dr. Samantha Jewell, Faculty Senate Chair, March 3, 2022.
Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, March 8, 2022.
Dr. DeRionne Pollard, President, April 7, 2022.

The post Existing Academic Program Review (AA 11) appeared first on 91ÌÒÉ«.

POLICY STATEMENT

This policy explains the academic curriculum review process at 91ÌÒÉ«. Academic curriculum review occurs through a shared governance model that involves Academic Faculty and academic administrators at multiple levels.

DEFINITIONS

Academic Year: A nine (9)-month faculty contract period beginning in August and ending in May.

Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee: A body consisting of academic faculty representatives from each School and the Library, a staff member from the Office of the Registrar, and other members as deemed necessary by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Chair.

Academic Faculty (as defined by NSHE B/R 1/03): Includes instructional, counseling, and library faculty.

PROCEDURES

I. Types of Proposals

The academic curriculum review process applies to courses and programs that carry academic credit. It does not apply to continuing education or workforce development courses and/or programs that do not carry or confer academic credit.

The academic curriculum review process covers five types of curriculum proposals:

A. Prerequisite proposals: Adding, deleting, or changing the prerequisite(s) for a credit-bearing course.

B. Individual academic credit-bearing course proposals:

1. Adding or deleting a course;
2. Changing an existing course prefix, number, title, number of credits, grading method, or catalog description.

C. Core Curriculum proposals: Any change to the Core Curriculum, including:

1. Adding or deleting courses from a category;
2. Changing the categories that comprise the Core Curriculum;
3. Changing the number of credits required in a category;
4. Changing Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs).

D. Minor curricular changes:

1. Adding, deleting, or changing a course that is required for an academic degree program, or groups of courses students may choose among to fulfill a degree requirement, when those changes affect less than one-third (1/3) of the total major requirements for the program;
2. Adding, deleting, or changing Concentrations or Tracks within an existing academic degree.

E. Substantive curricular changes:

1. Adding or deleting existing academic programs;
2. Changing a academic program’s title, mission statement, or learning objectives;
3. Curricular changes that affect more than one-third (1/3) of the required credits within an academic program.

II. Levels and Types of Review

To ensure the integrity and quality of the NSU academic curriculum, proposals are developed by faculty in the related program(s) and proceed through multiple levels of review, beginning with the individual School in which a course or program is housed. The Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee and other reviewers will not consider proposals that have not been approved and forwarded by the appropriate School-level curriculum committee.

Proposal authors are responsible for ensuring that all levels of review are completed, including securing relevant external approvals by bodies such as the NSHE Common Course Numbering System or the NSHE Board of Regents. This may include working closely with the Office of the Registrar and the Office of the Provost to complete and submit all application materials. Proposal authors should also consult with the appropriate academic units and/or faculty members to ensure there is support for and appropriate staffing for the proposal.

Some levels of review are advisory; in this case, the reviewing body provides a recommendation to approve or deny the proposal and submits it to the next reviewing body for consideration. Other levels have denial authority; proposals do not move further in the review process if they are not approved at that level. The authority at each level of review varies by the type of proposal. Proposals must progress through each level in the order prescribed. As the chief academic officer for the University, the Provost has ultimate authority over academic curriculum decisions.

In the summary of stages of review provided below, all advisory levels are so noted; any level of review that is not noted as advisory must approve a proposal before it may move to the next level of review.

A. Prerequisite proposals:

1. 1. School-level Curriculum Committee
   2. Academic dean (advisory)
   3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee

B. Course proposals:

1. 1. School-level Curriculum Committee
   2. Academic dean (advisory)
   3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
   4. NSHE Common Course Numbering System (external body)

C. Core Curriculum proposals:

1. 1. Proposals submitted by Schools other than Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Business (LASB) begin with the following levels of review:

• 1. • School-level Curriculum Committee
     • Academic dean (advisory)
     • LASB School-level Curriculum Committee (advisory)
  2. Proposals submitted by LASB go directly to the LASB School-level Curriculum Committee. SOE and SON Academic Deans may view LASB Core Curriculum proposals through the curriculum tracking software and may submit suggestions or concerns to the LASB Dean and/or LAS School-level Curriculum Committee.
  3. After review by the LASB School-level Curriculum Committee, all Core Curriculum proposals then go through the following levels of review:

1. 1. • LASB Dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost

D. Minor curricular changes:

1. 1. School-level Curriculum Committee
   2. Academic dean (advisory)
   3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
   4. Office of the Provost

E. Substantive curricular changes:

1. 1. Substantive changes to existing academic programs and new academic minors under 30 credits

1. 1. • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost

1. 2. Substantive changes leading to new academic programs or academic minors over 30 credits or name changes to existing programs (all name changes are considered substantive changes that must go through the substantive academic review process)
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost
      • NSHE Academic Affairs Council (for program additions or deletions; external body)
      • Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (for program additions, deletions, and some changes; external body)

III. Curriculum Committees

A. School-level curriculum committees: The Dean of each School shall appoint a curriculum committee consisting of Academic Faculty. This committee is responsible for reviewing all academic curriculum proposals that fall under the School’s purview. The individual Schools may develop appropriate procedures and guidelines for School-level curriculum review processes.

B. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (FSCC): The FSCC is charged with reviewing all academic course, core curriculum, and degree program proposals, as well as proposals to change academic course prerequisites. Generally, the FSCC is an advisory body that reviews and makes recommendations on academic curriculum proposals; however, the FSCC has the authority to deny or move forward prerequisite and course proposals (i.e., these two categories of proposals cannot move forward without FSCC approval).

1. Membership:
   • Chair: The FSCC Chair is a voting member of the committee. Annually, during the May meeting, the Faculty Senate elects the FSCC chair from among its members; the Chair serves a term of one academic year, beginning the following July 1. Per the Senate Bylaws, the FSCC will receive a stipend for the academic year. Chairs may serve more than one consecutive term. The Chair’s responsibilities include:
     • scheduling monthly meetings of the FSCC during the academic year;
     • informing proposal authors of the date and time of the meeting at which their proposal will be discussed;
     • updating FSCC records and minutes, including records of all proposals received and reviewed;
     • facilitating the Committee’s voting process;
     • providing Committee updates to the Faculty Senate;
     • updating authors as their proposals move through the review process;
     • indicating the FSCC’s decision and moving proposals to the next stage in the review process, as appropriate;
     • compiling a list at the end of each fall and spring semester of all prerequisite and course proposals approved during that term and submitting the list to the Provost.
   • Voting members: Each School and the Library have two representatives on the FSCC; the FSCC Chair serves as one of the representatives from their academic unit. With the exception of the FSCC Chair, Deans select the academic faculty representatives from their Schools; these representatives do not have to be members of the Faculty Senate. The Dean of Libraries may serve as one voting member from the Library.
   • Non-voting members: The Registrar is a non-voting member of the FSCC. The FSCC Chair may invite additional non-voting members to serve on the Committee.

2. Proposal approval: Proposals are approved by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of voting members.

IV. Review Criteria

Academic curriculum proposals are reviewed based on the following considerations:

A. Consistency with mission: The consistency between the proposal and the mission of the School and the University.

1. 1. The FSCC and other reviewers will consider the judgment and input of the relevant Dean, department chair (if applicable), and School-level curriculum committee. Reviewers beyond the level of the individual School will also exercise their independent judgment to evaluate whether a proposal is consistent with the mission of the School and the University.

B. Appropriate rigor: The extent to which the proposal reflects the academic content and rigor expected at a comprehensive state institution. Reviewers consider the following factors:

1. 1. Whether the proposal author demonstrates that similar academic courses or programs are offered at comparable comprehensive state institutions in the U.S.;
   2. Whether the content of proposed academic courses and programs are consistent with course/program titles and descriptions;
   3. Whether the academic content appears commensurate with the level of the course or program (e.g., lower- or upper-division; undergraduate or graduate).

C. Sufficient evidence: Whether the proposal provides sufficient detail and evidence for reviewers to determine if the proposal is reasonable and appropriate given available resources and the College’s mission.

D. Additional considerations for Core Curriculum proposals:

1. Category alignment: For a class to be part of 91ÌÒɫ’s Core Curriculum, the course must align with one of these categories: English, Study & Technology Skills, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Fine Arts, Humanities, Constitution, or Cultural Diversity.

2. Inclusion of two Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs), which are consistent in each section of the class. 91ÌÒɫ’s ELOs are: Civic Knowledge and Engagement; Co-Creative Problem Solving; Creative Expression and Aesthetics; Critical Literacy; Ethical Reasoning; Information Literacy; Inquiry and Analysis; Lifelong Learning; Oral Communication; Quantitative Reasoning; and Written Communication.

3. Adherence to our Core Curriculum Proposal Guidelines, which state that Core Curriculum courses should typically:

i. Be 100 or 200 level;
ii. Not contain prerequisites;
iii. Be offered at least once every two years.

V. Timeline

The Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee establishes and disseminates guidelines with detailed information about timelines and the approval process.

The FSCC meets to consider proposals once per month from September through December and February through April of each Academic Year. Proposals are submitted online. All proposals must be received by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee by the first day of each month to be considered at that month’s meeting. Incomplete proposals may be returned to submitters for revisions; this may delay the review process.

Proposals that require full Faculty Senate review will be introduced by the FSCC Chair as an information item at the next Senate meeting after review by the FSCC. At minimum, proposals will be on the Faculty Senate agenda item one month as an informational item and voted on as an action item at the next Senate meeting. Faculty Senate may delay a vote if Senators request additional information or via a majority vote by Faculty Senate.

All proposals must be fully approved at all levels and received by the Registrar’s Office by December 1 of each year to be included in the next academic catalog.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

• The following NSU Curriculum Forms and information are available on the NSU portal:
  • Prerequisite Proposal E-Form
  • Course Approval Form
  • Core Curriculum Approval Form
  • Degree Approval Form
  • Course Fee Form
  • Course Fee Policy
  • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Guidelines

ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

Faculty Senate Executive Council
fsec@nevadastate.edu

HISTORY

Curriculum Committee Procedure approved 2/24/2009.
Curriculum Committee Procedure revised 05/2019.
Replaces AA 20: Curriculum Review Policy approved 12/19/2019.

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Molly Appel, Faculty Senate Chair, 7/20/2023.
Approved by Dr. Tony Scinta, Interim Provost, 7/25/2023.
Approved by Dr. DeRionne Pollard, President, 8/14/2023.

The post Academic Curriculum Review Policy (AA 20.1) appeared first on 91ÌÒÉ«.