2. Curriculum Committee

It shall be the responsibility of this committee to review all proposals for changes in the curricular offerings of the College, including new curricula and courses, major revisions or deletions of existing curricula and courses, and to recommend appropriate action to the Faculty Senate. It shall review the College’s general education requirements and recommend any changes. It shall review the philosophy of the academic programs, and it may consider changes in courses and programs in all Divisions of the College.

2.1 Curriculum Committee Procedures

2.1.1 Academic Process for Initiation of Curriculum Change (2004) (2017)

The Academic Process shall consist of action by the following: Curriculum Committee, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Faculty Senate, and the Vice President for Academic Approval by the President and the Board of Trustees may be necessary. State approval may also be required. All curriculum changes must follow the Academic Process unless otherwise stated.
The proposals for curriculum changes may be submitted to the Curriculum Committee by Department Chairpersons, individual faculty members, administrative personnel, or the Student Senate. Electronic forms are available on the MCC Curriculum Proposals Database. This database can be accessed through the MCC web site at: http://www.monroecc.edu/go/curriculum.
1. Faculty must submit proposals for departmental discussion and Curriculum changes proposed by administrative personnel or the Student Senate are also subject to departmental discussion and approval In Instances where proposals clearly have an Impact on one (or more) academic department(s).
2. New program, program revision, program deactivation, and course deactivation proposals shall be forwarded to the College’s transfer representative from the Advisement and Transfer Services office for review and comment for a maximum often (10) working days after academic department
3. The Division Dean shall then review proposals, resolve any conflict or confusion within the division, and forward them with pertinent comments to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program
The Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development shall review all proposals and forward them to the
The Curriculum Committee will review the Upon review, proposals will be posted electronically for faculty review for ten (10) working days. Comments may be submitted by clicking on Respond to the Document while in “Posted for Faculty Review.” Comments will be sent electronically to the Committee Chairperson. After the posting period is complete, the Curriculum Committee will review comments and vote on the proposals.
Faculty, staff and administration shall be notified electronically of curriculum proposal Electronic versions of proposals posted for faculty review are available on the MCC Curriculum Proposals Database. This database can be accessed through the MCC web site at: http://www.monroecc.edu/go/curriculum.
If Faculty Senate vote is not required, the proposal will be forwarded to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development and the Vice President for Academic
1. Faculty Senate vote is required for New Program, Program Revision and Program Deactivation
2. Faculty Senate vote is required for any proposal receiving negative comments during Curriculum Committee review or Posting Period that cannot be
3. Faculty Senate vote is not required for New Course, Course Revision, Course Deactivation, Special Studies and Achievement Award
For proposals receiving comments during Curriculum Committee review or Posting Period that cannot be resolved, the Curriculum Committee will hear the proposal and call an open hearing if necessary or requested by any interested If not resolved, the Curriculum Committee will forward the proposal to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee may hold an open hearing if necessary or requested by an interested party. The Faculty Senate will vote to forward the proposal to the Vice President for Academic Services. The Vice President must approve or disapprove any proposal within thirty (30) working days. If disapproved, the rationale for disapproval will be forwarded to the proposer of the proposal and the Curriculum Committee.
A proposal may be withdrawn by the proposer at any time during the Academic
Curriculum Committee will inform proposer of refusal and

2.1.2 Curriculum Changes – Courses

New Courses
New Courses are courses which will become a permanent part of the College curriculum. New course proposals will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
Course Revision
A course revision is the addition or deletion of a prerequisite, revision of a course description, major changes in course content, credit changes, or any changes in interdisciplinary courses. Course revision proposals will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
Editorial changes such as a change in prefix, number, title and/or catalog description without changing the course content will be submitted to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development through the Division Dean. Such changes will not follow the Academic Process but will be reported to the Committee.
Course Deactivations (temporary and permanent)
Course Deactivation is the deletion of the course from the College Catalog. Course Deactivations will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
1. Departments shall review course offerings each year.
2. Proposals for course deactivation shall be submitted to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development who will notify all affected Proposals must include documentation indicating the rationale for proposed course deactivation.
3. A course temporarily deactivated may be reinstated in its original form without review by the Proposals for reinstatement shall be proposed to the Division Dean and, if approved, shall be submitted to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development for approval. If the request for reinstatement does not originate with the department offering the course, the recommendation of the department shall be requested before review and approval.
Special Studies (2012)
Special Studies is a general heading for experimental courses or those for which the demand is untested, unknown, immediate, or temporary. Special Studies will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).

1. A Special Studies course may be submitted to the Curriculum Committee which may recommend approval by the Vice President for Academic A Special Studies course may be in the areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Mathematics, Natural Science or Health/Physical Education. Sequential course numbers 080 through 089, 180 through 189 and 280 through 289 will be reserved for each Department’s Special Studies; and each will have the option to select the most appropriate title.
  A special studies courses designed as 080 through 089 would reflect a course with imputed credit. A Special Studies course designated as 280 through 289 would reflect a more sophisticated level of study, usually requiring a prerequisite. A Special Studies course may be submitted as a general elective or as an elective in the areas of Humanities, Social Science, Mathematics, Natural Science or Health/Physical Education with the approval of the respective division. A Special Studies course may be submitted for program elective at the discretion of the Department. A Special Studies course may not be submitted as a program requirement or as a requirement in areas of Humanities, Social Science, Mathematics, Natural Science or Health/Physical Education.
2. Any approved Special Studies course is approved for a period of two (2) years commencing at the beginning of the next After the two year period, the course will be automatically discontinued. Permission for an extension may be granted by the Curriculum Committee under special circumstances if requested by the Department. Prior to the assembly of the master schedule, the Vice President for Academic Services will provide a list of approved Special Studies courses to the office of Records and Registration. The Special Studies may be proposed as permanent courses by the Department through the established procedures for New Courses.
3. Special Studies courses are not subject to the Catalog/Master Schedule deadline dates and may be implemented at any time following
4. A printed list of Special Studies courses will be maintained in the office of the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program

2.1.3 Curriculum Changes – Programs (2004)

New Programs
New Programs are new degree areas of study including: Certificate, Associate in Arts, Associate in Science, and Associate in Applied Science
New Programs which are proposed will be reviewed for comments by the offices of Admissions and Advisement and Transfer Services as well as those listed in 2.1.1(2)(a) and (b).
New Programs/ will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
Following approval by Curriculum Committee after the posting period, New Program proposals will be presented to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee prior to Faculty Senate vote. Proposals for New Programs must be approved by the Vice President for Academic Services, President, Board of Trustees, and the State University of New York. They must be registered with the State Education Department.
Program/ Revisions (2005)
Program/ Revisions are the modification of any existing certificate or degree Program/Advisement Sequence Revisions will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
1. Editorial changes such as a change in title and/or catalog description without changing the program content will be submitted to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development through the Division Such changes will not follow the Academic Process but will be reviewed and approved by the Curriculum Committee chair who will report such changes to the Committee.
2. Following approval by Curriculum Committee after the posting period, Program Revision proposals will be presented to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee prior to Faculty Senate Program Revisions must also be approved by the Vice President for Academic Services. The Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development will submit title changes and major Program Revisions to the State University of New York and State Education Department. Major Program Revisions must be registered with the State Education Department.
Program Deactivation/Discontinuance
Program Deactivation is the deletion of the program from the College Program Discontinuance is the permanent deletion of the program from the College Curriculum.
Program Deactivations/Discontinuance will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
1. Proposals for Program Deactivation/Discontinuance shall be submitted to the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development who will notify all affected Proposals must include documentation substantiating the need for the proposed Program Deactivation.
2. A printed list of Program Deactivation/Discontinuance proposals will be compiled by the Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development after the deadline for proposal
3. The Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Program Development will submit to the State University of New York and the State Education Department a printed list of Program Discontinuances with the effective
Achievement Awards
An Achievement Award is a written record of achievement or performance which may be granted to students who have successfully completed a credit or non-credit course or structured series of courses which has been established for a specific purpose and includes performance-based outcomes Achievement Awards should include general education courses.
Credit courses offered in Achievement Awards should articulate with an existing certificate or associate degree program.
Achievement Awards will follow the academic process as specified in 2.1.1(1) through (9).
The Curriculum Office will maintain a list of approve Achievement Awards and submit to the Curriculum Committee an annual list of those Achievement Awards. The Curriculum Committee may request evaluation reports on any of the Achievement Awards and recommend discontinuance if appropriate.
During the review and approval process, proposals will be submitted to the following offices for comment: Records and Registration, Advisement and Transfer Services, Admissions, and Workforce Development and Technical Education.

2.2 Cooperative Education (1990)

2.2.1 Cooperative Education at MCC

Cooperative Education at MCC is a credit-bearing academic program that allows day or evening students to work at a job related to their college major or career interest, while continuing an appropriate classroom

2.2.2 Cooperative Education Credit

Cooperative education credit may be awarded for cooperative education courses which have been approved through the existing curriculum development

2.2.3 Enrollment

Cooperative education may be taken as a:

Program requirement (e.g., food service, )
Program elective (e.g., business)
General elective (e.g., liberal arts) Program add-on credit
Substitute for existing required courses with the approval of the chairperson of the department that sponsors the program.

2.2.4 Maximum Credits

The maximum amount of credit that may be awarded for a cooperative education experience is six credit

The first four credit hours will be earned by:
1. Entering into a learning contract that relates classroom learning to the job The contract will be developed by the student, College and employer. This contract will contain job performance objectives which will:
  1. State what is to be learned in terms of desired outcomes
  2. Establish a method of evaluating the level of achievement
  3. Reflect the approval of the Coordinator of the cooperative education course.
2. Participation in a weekly cooperative education seminar
3. Participation in at least 180 hours of supervised work experience
An additional two hours of credit may be earned in a subsequent semester if the student:
1. Demonstrates though a learning contract that there will be a significant differentiation of role and an expansion of responsibility
2. Participates in at least an additional 180 hours of supervised work experience
A student who wishes to participate in a cooperative education program generally will have attained at least 24 credit hours and have maintained a GPA of 00 or better. In some instances students not meeting the above qualifications may be admitted with the permission of the appropriate Department Chairperson.

2.3 Continuing Education Unit (C.E.U.) (1990)

2.3.1 Definition of Continuing Education Unit (C.E.U.)

The faculty of Monroe Community College hereby adopts the Continuing Education Unit (C.E.U.) as a means of recording, accounting, and providing recognition for student achievement in noncredit courses, programs and educational activities. One (1) C.E.U. is defined as “ten contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction”.

The C.E.U. will be used as a unit of measure to give recognition for an individual’s participation in noncredit activities which meet the appropriate nationally endorsed criteria and as an accounting unit of an institution’s total noncredit courses, programs, and activities.

The College will adhere to the guidelines on use of the Continuing Education Unit as set forth in the SUNY Chancellor’s Memorandum to Presidents dated December 3, 1976, and the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Guidelines on the Continuing Education Unit, 1973.

The Office for Community Education and the Office for Corporate and Community Based Programs determine in advance, according to SUNY guidelines, the C.E.U.’s to be awarded to individual participants who meet the criteria for satisfactory completion of the educational experience.

2.3.2 Administration of the Continuing Education Unit (C.E.U.)

A permanent record of student’s participation in noncredit continuing education activity for which C.E.U.’s have been awarded will be maintained by the Office of Registration and Records, and a student may request and obtain an official College record of C.E.U.’s earned.

The official College record (student transcript) to be maintained will include: the name and address of the individual participant, social security number of the participant, title of the program activity, the semester in which the program activity took place, and the number of C.E.U.’s awarded.

The Office for Community Education and the Office for Corporate and Community Based Programs will retain as part of its record; a brief description of the program or activity giving some indication of content, level, objectives and format, location of the program, starting and ending dates of the program activity, name of the instructor, and cooperating organizations such as a company, agency, or association. Records will be maintained to allow periodic reporting of C.E.U.’s awarded in total during specific time periods such as a semester or a year.

2.4 Guidelines on Course Levels

2.4.1 College Level

Definition: “A college level course is one whose content represents a post-secondary learning experience. A college level course will qualify for credit toward a degree or certificate at Monroe Community College.”
A college level course should conform to the spirit and intent of the following guidelines:
1. The course content should meet the educational quality, learning outcomes, and level of complexity and depth for college level courses as designated by the faculty of the department offering the course through the curriculum
2. (Left blank)
3. The course should be in accord with guidelines for granting credit as specified by the State University of New
4. Course content criteria as specified by professional accrediting units of professional organizations should be
5. The course content should parallel content in courses taught for credit in the first two years of other SUNY units and community colleges in
6. The course content should not duplicate a high school course that is generally required for a local New York State high school
7. The course content should be educationally appropriate as a post- secondary learning experience as evidenced in curriculum, degrees, and course

2.4.2 Remedial/Developmental

“College remedial/developmental courses are those which primarily serve to overcome deficiencies which would prevent a student from succeeding in college level courses. These courses will carry imputed[1] credit.”

2.5 Guidelines for Departmental Review/Planning/Budgeting (January 1996)

(Note: This policy is in its developmental stages for the 1996-1997 academic year. It superseded the January 1988 Policy found elsewhere in the Policy Manual.)

2.5.1 Purpose

To assess the Department’s relationship with and contributions to the college’s mission, students, faculty and
To provide the broad background necessary for informed decision-making.
To determine the Department’s future directions, curriculum, and allocation of fiscal and human

2.5.2 Method

Division Deans are responsible for overseeing their department’s review/planning/budgeting processes and integrating them within the
The Department Chair, working closely with Department members and the Division Dean, heads the process in his/her Departments evaluated by professional accrediting teams may want to use their self-evaluation reports as part of this process.
Chairs and Deans are encouraged to invite internal and external consultants Outside consultants are required every five years.

2.5.3 Timeline for Process

First Year: Each Department will:
1. Assesses its unique
2. Reviews pertinent information (see appendix b).
3. Determines how best to serve students, faculty, and community during the next five
4. Responds to divisional or college-wide issues
5. Responds to special initiatives requested by the department/program review committee
6. Decides the necessary steps (action goals) for the coming
  Each department will submit an annual set of goals tied to the college’s strategic plan, report at regular intervals as requested about its progress toward achieving the goals, and submit a summary of progress at the end of each academic year.
Years Two Through Five: Each year, departments will:
1. Assess their progress in accomplishing the previous year’s action
2. Review pertinent data and their five-year
3. Adjust or change, based on events of the previous year plus new
4. Decide action goals for the coming
End of Fifth Year
Departments provide a brief narrative summary of the previous five years, attach the five yearly plans and budgets, and send them to the appropriate Vice President, who will assign an outside consultant(s) to visit, assess the department and offer recommendations. The outside consultant(s) will be representative of the discipline(s) of the department, and be selected based on input and discussion with the department/chair/director, faculty and division dean. Guidelines and forms for the fifth year will be provided by the committee.
The cycle begins again.
The department/program review committee will assist the departments and coordinate the overall review process. The committee may require that departments respond to special divisional or college issues, or report on special initiatives. (See Appendix A for assigned responsibilities.)

2.5.4 Appendix A

Responsibilities for Implementing the Department Review Process
Listed below are responsibilities of key players in the Faculty Senate Department Review Process.

Faculty Senate Department Review Committee
1. Implement as appropriate, the recommendations of the Task Force Report on Budgetary Implications for Curriculum
2. Provide overall coordination of the department review process
3. Conduct orientation to department review process for departments
4. Provide technical assistance to departments during the department review process
5. Work with nonacademic departments to establish necessary procedures for their inclusion in the department review
6. Review and comment on departments’ annual department review reports
7. Provide reports to the Faculty Senate and appropriate Vice President as requested
Department Chairs and Faculty
1. Implement the department review process, conducting research and developing responses as appropriate
2. Prepare and submit annual department profiles and department plans, to include annual indicators of department health
3. Attend orientation sessions
4. Meet with other college offices for necessary data
5. Conduct necessary surveys
6. Coordinate external consultants if desired
Division Deans
1. Provide oversight of departments’ implementation of the department review process
2. Identify divisional issues to be addressed during the department review process
3. Identify division-wide indicators to be incorporated into Department Profiles
4. Review and comment on departments’ annual indicators
5. Receive and comment on departments’ annual reports, and forward them to Committee and Academic Vice President
Academic Vice President
1. Review and approve department review process
2. Review and approve departments’ annual reports
3. Identify college-wide issues to be addressed during the department review process
4. Identify college-wide indicators to be incorporated into department profiles
5. Implement “fifth year” outside consultant’s assessment of departments
Curriculum Office
1. Assist Faculty Senate department review committee
2. Assist departments in implementation of department review process
3. Coordinate collection of data for department review process
  Notes: As non-academic departments are included in the department review process, the Vice President for Student Services will assume similar responsibilities as detailed for the Academic Vice
  In general, the department review process is driven by the departmental faculty in that they conduct the review process including the identification of department indicators. The divisional deans provide oversight and evaluation of the departmental reports and are given the opportunity to input divisional issues. The Academic Vice President provides final approval of the process and the departmental reports, and is given the opportunity to input college-wide divisional issues. The Faculty Senate Committee coordinates the overall process and directs implementation through the guidelines.

2.5.5 Appendix B

Pertinent Information for the Department Review Process

To support the Faculty Senate’s Department Review Process, the Committee will provide each department with information relative to their operations. The statistical profile may include the following elements:

Enrollment (3-Year Trends)

Requests for information by program Applicants by program
New admits (applications/registrants)
Headcount and FTE by various categories (both demographics and site) Enrollment by key courses (as required)

Student Success

Transfer and placement rates Program changes
Grade distributions Retention by year in program
Retention in key courses (as requested)

Curriculum Development

Accreditation status
Curriculum Committee actions
Date of last course outline and program updates
Inventory of courses (SCH, FCH, class size, lab fees, ) Review of 2+2 and articulation agreements

Productivity/Faculty Ratio Data

History of course offerings and enrollments by semester (as requested) Learning Center FTE history
Faculty workload distribution Revenues/expenditures report

Faculty Profile

By rank
By term appointment

Additional Information Provided by the Department

Advisory committee minutes
Faculty evaluation by students
Student follow-up post-graduation
Employee comments
Retention activities/initiatives
Responses to data provided
Responses to other college programs
Outcomes
Advisement

2.5.6 Appendix C

Aspects to Consider in Setting Goals

These are aspects that might be pertinent to your department in setting its goals. Each department’s situation differs; some are growing, some shrinking, some changing focus; some are concerned about retention; high-risk courses; low student demand; others about staff, changing faculty needs, or static course offerings. The questions below are designed only to stimulate thinking. Not all would pertain to a given department, and there likely are others that should pertain.

Goal Setting/Planning Budgeting

Section 8 below is the key to setting and budgeting for your goals. To assist in answering the questions in Section 8, work through Sections 1-7, utilizing those appropriate to your department.

Courses/Curriculum
1. Should some courses be eliminated? Added? Changed in focus? Should a program be dropped? Why? What data indicate this? Should times, locations, frequency of offerings change? Should entry skill levels by established? Why?
Facilities
1. Do you have needs that are not currently being met? What do you project as needs in the next five years? Do you have supporting data? Have your needs changed? What will be the impact of such changes on facilities? Have you consulted with the Facilities Committee? What steps have you taken so far?
Equipment
1. Do you have equipment needs that are not being met? What kinds of equipment will you need in order to be up-to-date in five years? What are your supporting data? Do you have an equipment plan?
Students
1. What are the enrollment trends for your department? What are the projections?
2. Are there new student populations you can identify (B.S. degree holders, students home from other colleges in the summer, mature adults, employed workers, high school students, )?
3. Do you need to recruit additional students for particular courses? What steps do you plan to take? What do students feel are the strengths of your department?
4. Weaknesses? How do you know? Is retention low in certain courses? Do you know why? Are graduates successful? How do you know?
Faculty
1. What has the department’s faculty done recently to stay current in the field, acquire new competencies, or enrich their knowledge of their discipline?
2. Which competencies does your department need that it does not now have? Is there any plan to acquire them?
3. How do your faculty enrich the College community? (Offer seminars, lectures, materials, assist governance, students, )?
Support Service
1. What impact will your planned changes have on support services, such as Library, Media Services, Learning Center, Admissions, Financial Aid, Counseling, Advisement, Bookstore, Publicity, Publications, Research, Foundation? Have you consulted with them and secured their support?
Cost of Courses/Programs
1. What is the history of your program costs? Is your program cost effective? What can you do to help? Do your departments’ budgets reflect your departments’ priorities? The College’s priorities? Is your student/faculty ratio satisfactory?
Planning/Budgeting
1. What are your greatest needs — long-term? Next year? Do you have a time line for addressing these? What were your goals last year? What are the successes? What remains to be done? What unanticipated events occurred? What three or four action goals do you want to accomplish next year? Have you budgeted for these? Are you seeking alternative funding (grants, donations, for example) for those not budgeted?

2.6 Program Evaluation Guidelines (2008) (2013) (2020)

2.6.0 Introduction

Program evaluation does not take place in a vacuum. While faculty members engage in conducting program evaluations, teaching and learning continues, departmental committees continue to meet, and curriculum planning marches forward. It is therefore important that the program evaluation process not only take a snapshot of a program as it is at one moment in time but that it also advances the established and ongoing work of the faculty. Program evaluation projects are not a means and an end unto themselves, but rather an extension of the business that department and program faculty are already engaged in. They provide an opportunity for faculty to think purposefully about issues of equity, inclusion, and diversity and to critically examine program outcomes, curriculum, structures, and policies to understand how certain structures, assumptions, and even learning supports may privilege or marginalize various student populations.

Degree and certificate programs that have programmatic accreditation with full approval from their respective accreditors are exempt from the formal MCC program evaluation process, but they must consult with staff in the Office of Curriculum and Program Development and/or MCC’s Accreditation Liaison Officer in order to ensure that their respective accreditation processes also satisfy MSCHE and SUNY guidelines. Accredited programs should submit their accreditation reports to the Provost and the Office of Curriculum and Program Development, with an attached executive summary describing findings, recommendations of the accreditors, and the program’s plans for continuous improvement. Accredited programs in the EDIWS and CTE division should also submit their accreditation reports to the VP of EDIWS and CTE with an attached executive summary describing findings, recommendations of the accreditors, and the program’s plans for continuous improvement.

Degree and certificate programs with low enrollment (for example, fewer than ten students) may also be exempt from the full evaluation process. Such programs should consult with staff in the Office of Curriculum and Program Development, the Dean or designee, the VP of EDIWS and CTE for programs in this division, and the Provost to determine an appropriate evaluation plan. Programs that have substantive curriculum elements in common may complete a combined evaluation. Faculty in such programs should also consult with the Office of Curriculum and Program Development, the Dean or designee, and the Provost, as well as the VP of EDIWS and CTE for programs in this division, to discuss the possibility of combining such programs in the evaluation process.

2.6.1 Process in Context

As outlined in Foundations of Student Success 4.1, Monroe Community College’s faculty follows a model of “full-circle assessment”:

The four phases of the assessment/evaluation cycle can be summarized using four corresponding verbs:

Review => Assess => Evaluate => Act

Typically, this four-phase process is demonstrated visually in a circle, each verb occupying a different quadrant of that circle, but with the process clearly indicated as iterative and never-ending. (Foundations 4.1, pg. 27)

This process, when applied to a program evaluation project, results in a set of findings and recommendations which require follow-up action beyond that point when the project is completed and the report is filed.

2.6.2 Preparatory Steps to a Program Evaluation Project

Monroe Community College operates on a 6-year cycle, with all degree and certificate programs and certain non-credit bearing programs scheduled for a complete evaluation once within that time frame. In fall 2011, the Faculty Senate adopted a three-semester project schedule. The preparatory steps for program evaluation projects listed and described in this section are understood to take place in the fall semester prior to the scheduled start of the project.

Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment communicates the program evaluation cycle to the Provost, VP of EDIWS and CTE, Deans or designee, and Chairs at the beginning of each fall semester.
Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment meets with division dean (or AVP or designee) and then the department chair to identify a “Program Evaluation Leader (PEL),” generally a full-time faculty member of the program under evaluation, to lead the project.
PEL meets with Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment to discuss general processes of leading an evaluation project and receives resources necessary to prepare for the project.
PEL submits Discretionary Release Time Form to Academic Services.
PEL accesses the Academic Assessment Database or other online archive of reports and reviews the program evaluation report filed in the previous cycle.
PEL works with department chair to establish appropriate allocation of teaching load and other service so as to plan for the successful completion of the project.
PEL consults with department chair to develop a general plan that addresses how the department will enable and support the completion of the project.

2.6.3 Phase One: Review (Semester I of III, generally spring)

During the review phase of the project, the PEL, along with his/her program colleagues, dean (or AVP or designee), and department chair, engage in a thorough discussion of past and current practices within the program. These practices should be looked at critically, with the aim of understanding both intended and unintended consequences, and how they may have different effects on different groups of students. The time spent on review should be devoted to the development of a complete understanding of how, and if, the program meets the purpose and goals of the faculty given its current design and daily execution. In the context of preparing for the new program evaluation project, the PEL and working team should review any prior evaluative reports related to the program. This phase is one of discussion and discovery and should serve as a benefit to build purpose and unity within the program.

Establish a working team. Even in small programs, the PEL cannot reasonably complete a full program evaluation alone. Support from the department chair and colleagues is necessary. Since the daily work of the program is the product of shared contributions, so too should the work of the program evaluation project be shared.
1. Team may be a committee comprising full-time and/or adjunct faculty members
2. Team may be the full program faculty
Designate a purpose for the project. In addition to the assessment of student learning with respect to the Program Learning Outcomes, the project should be framed by a purpose. Generally speaking, projects should be conducted so as to answer a set of questions (or a major question), address a set of issues (or a major issue), or solve a set of problems (or a major problem) associated with the success of the program.
1. PEL should meet with the division dean or designee and department chair to discuss and establish project purpose; the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment and other senior members of the Curriculum and Program Development Office may also attend such a meeting;
2. When reasonable and necessary, faculty teaching in the program should also be consulted on the development of a project purpose.
Review Program Design. The PEL is responsible for directing a program-level review of the design of the degree. As part of this process, the PEL should lead the following actions:
1. Collect, review, and revise as necessary (for accuracy, consistency, clarity, and accessibility), information about the program’s design from publications and web resources, including:
  1. all references to the program in the College catalog (including the program description, summary of program entrance requirements, etc.)
  2. the program’s specific course requirements, including recommendations for course enrollments in electives and in general education classes
  3. any specific requirements that make admission to the program conditional, such as pre-requisite or co-requisite courses, or the achievement of specific scores on placement tests
  4. the four-semester model of course enrollment that demonstrates how a student might achieve completion of the degree within two years of full-time study
  5. a “what if” scenario in Degree Works (in the case of discrepancies, contact the Coordinator of Academic Advisement Systems)
  6. the program or department website (if applicable)
  7. promotional materials;
2. Review, and revise as necessary, the program’s purpose statement and describe its relationship to the College’s mission; if the program has no formal or published purpose statement, one should be written, with linkages shown to support the College’s mission;
3. Review, and revise as necessary, established program-level goals. If the program has no formal or published goals, then they should be written. Do these stated goals accurately reflect the program faculty’s priorities for what the program should offer its students (examples could include completion of the degree, acquiring a specific skill set, transfer, and/or employment)? Is the list of goals complete and up-to-date? Do the goals take into account the varied needs of a diverse student body?
4. Review, and revise as necessary, existing program-level outcomes. If the program has no formal or published outcomes, then they should be written. These outcomes should support the purpose and the goals of the program. Outcomes should take two forms:
  1. Program Learning Outcomes. These are concisely worded, measurable statements of the broad, cumulative learning that graduates of the program should have acquired as a result of successfully passing the program’s designed set of courses. Measurement of these outcomes is usually associated with the structured learning that goes on in the classroom (known as direct measures of program success) and measurement should be achieved through multiple and varied methods.
  2. Program Operational Outcomes. These concisely worded statements include all other aspects of the successful operation of a high-quality program outside of the classroom, such as ongoing faculty professional development; conditions of the learning environment; success in student recruitment, enrollment, retention, and completion, including students from traditionally underserved groups based on gender, race, ethnicity, first language, socio-economic status, or educational background; and/or applications of technology including access to technology and student support with respect to technology. The evaluation of and reporting on these outcomes is not associated with the structured learning in the classroom but considering them does help provide a broader understanding of the success of a program.
5. Review existing course learning outcomes (CLOs) for all core required courses in the program, and for all electives supporting the program.
  1. As part of this review, analyze and consider underlying assumptions, values, and worldview.
  2. Ensure that the design of each CLO meets current College standards
  3. Verify that the set of CLOs for each course accurately portrays the “minimum common core content” that students should expect to learn by taking the course
6. Review the whole of the program curriculum.
  1. Map program core and elective courses to program learning outcomes. Analyze and assess as part of this process how current courses do and do not satisfy program learning outcomes as a whole. What program learning outcomes are not adequately supported by courses (gaps)? Which program learning outcomes are covered in too many classes (redundancies)? Which courses seem to deliver little value in supporting program learning outcomes, and which ones seem to be overly-packed with content?
  2. Map program core and elective courses to Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs). Analyze and assess as part of this process how current courses do and do not satisfy Institutional Learning Outcomes. (In order to determine which courses map to each ILO, you may use MCC General Education designation, PLOs, CLOs, or course descriptions.)
7. If appropriate or deemed important, identify and describe any distinctive, unique elements of the program as it currently exists. What about the current program makes it different from similar programs at other two- and four-year institutions? What would or should draw students to MCC for this program? If, for any reason, the program’s design is not unique, what other aspects of faculty efforts, facilities and equipment, or student success make the program something that the faculty are proud of? (You may wish to consider the roles of High Impact Practices, corequisite courses, supplemental instruction, or other noteworthy pedagogical practices in your program.)
8. Review and evaluate for clarity the relationship between degree requirements and general education courses. If particular courses are required, do these courses seem to be serving their intended purpose? If general education electives are recommended, what purpose do they serve in the degree? Are there particular skills, knowledge, or competencies missing in the degree that general education courses could provide?
9. Review curriculum for articulation with main transfer partners.
Plan for course-based assessment of program learning outcomes. Based on the work included in the curriculum map, consider how course-embedded assignments align with program learning outcomes, and plan for coordinated assessment of Program Learning Outcomes. These courses will be the “target courses” for assessment of the program’s learning outcomes. Course-based assessment needs a lot of planning for it to be done well, and faculty should work collaboratively to ensure program learning outcomes are assessed properly. Ideally, there should be multiple ways by which students may demonstrate their achievement of the learning outcomes. The PEL should consult with the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment for training, and where appropriate, should invite the Associate Director to meet with program and/or department faculty for advice and training in assessment processes. Where possible and deemed appropriate, consider an evaluation of High Impact Practices as part of the assessment of student learning.

2.6.4 Phase Two: Assess (Semester II of III, generally fall)

During the assess phase of the project, the PEL works in collaboration with his/her program faculty, along with colleagues from support offices around the College, to collect information and data that documents the operations of the program within the institutional context. It is understood that the process of program assessment includes the analysis of collected information from a variety of sources. This phase of the project is the most time- and labor-consuming of the three semesters.

Plan and administer course-based assessment of student learning in selected courses. The information collected from course-based assessment is particularly important because it is generally the only source of direct measurement of student learning available to program faculty. Conducting course-level assessment is difficult to manage and coordinate, and the timing opportunities for collecting this information are often short and very specific. Referring to the identified target list for course-based assessment, the PEL should work with the teaching faculty members to assist them in the planning and administration of the assessment. Ideally, assessment should ensure that students have multiple ways to demonstrate mastery of an outcome, and the tools (for example, student assignments, essays, or exams) used to provide data about student performance should be selected accordingly.
Collect supporting program-level data from various resources. Aside from student learning achievement, a program best demonstrates its quality and success in meeting goals and outcomes through the collection of information outside of the classroom. (Note: Program operational outcomes, program evaluation purpose, and answers to other questions in Phase I should direct the focus for this section.)
1. From and about the faculty
  1. Present any relevant information about faculty workload, course coverage, and/or professional development pertaining to challenges and/or successes in meeting program goals and outcomes.
  2. Faculty satisfaction. Describe the method by which the program measures the satisfaction of its full-time and adjunct faculty with the program’s design, delivery, and support received from the College. This method may be informal. Information may be collected from an internally designed faculty survey, department meeting discussions, or other means that permit and promote constructive dialog and candor about program strengths and weaknesses.
2. From and about the students
  1. Program evaluation report from IR. Review IR’s report on program enrollment, persistence, retention, transfer, and completion, as well as course enrollment and grades in key courses.
  2. Student recruitment, orientation, advisement, and registration. Describe any program faculty efforts in these areas, with attention to efforts that increase equity, diversity, or inclusion in the program, that are unique, especially effective, or go above and beyond common practice at the College. If possible, include quantifiable data regarding the number of students affected and/or hours devoted to such efforts by faculty members.
  3. Faculty efforts in student retention and program completion. Describe any program faculty efforts in these areas, with attention to efforts that increase equity, diversity, or inclusion in the program, that are unique, especially effective, or go above and beyond common practice at the College.
  4. Student satisfaction with the program. Lacking the institutional resources for formal student surveys and acknowledging the difficulty of getting reliable and representative responses even when valid student surveys can be issued, we still believe in the importance of the student voice in program evaluation. Collect informal student feedback about the program, for example, student opinions on advisement, facilities, scheduling, or required general education courses. Gather perspectives from a diverse sample of students, and make sure that the voices of students from traditionally underserved populations are heard.
3. About the institutional educational environment — Concentrate only on selected aspects of this section as they are important to this program evaluation.
  1. Academic learning environments. Describe and assess any specific physical facilities and equipment that the program requires (and uses) to deliver the educational purpose of the degree. Assess to what extent the facilities and equipment in their current state meet the needs of students and the teaching faculty, and how identified improvements might promote student success in program achievement and completion.
  2. Student support from other college offices. Identify those other services upon which the program relies that are delivered by other college offices. Collaborate with staff providing those services to describe and assess the contributions made to the program. Examples of support through Academic and Student Services may include (but are not limited to): the library; admissions; counseling; advising; transfer; career; tutoring and learning centers; online learning services; and educational technology services. Prioritize assessment of supports for traditionally underserved groups (for example, accessibility services for students with disabilities, technology provisions for students who do not have access to necessary technology, childcare services for student-parents, financial support for economically disadvantaged students, counseling for students in challenging life circumstances, etc.)
  3. Co-curricular activities. Identify other learning activities students engage in that fall outside of the typical course design, or even outside of the program, but which support learning opportunities. Collaborate with activity advisors to describe and assess the value of these activities to the program.
4. From the external environment
  1. Input from standing advisory committees or equivalent if available and relevant. Agendas and minutes from meetings documenting input and suggestions made by committee members should be included and commented upon, as appropriate. The role of the advisory committee, how often it meets, and a list of advisory committee members with their respective institutional/professional roles should be included in the report.
  2. Plan for external review team (ERT) visit. The PEL should lead the program faculty in a discussion identifying prospective participants in an on-campus visit from peers and professionals from other colleges and/or prospective employers. The Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment should be consulted regarding the process of identifying and building an effective external review team. The names and titles of potential external review team members should be submitted to the Provost and to the appropriate Dean or designee for review. In addition, programs in the EDIWS and CTE division should submit the names and titles of potential external review team members to the VP of EDIWS and CTE for review. Members of the ERT should not be directly affiliated with MCC. For additional guidance on external review teams, consult Exhibit A: Guidelines for External Review Teams.

2.6.5 Phase Three: Evaluate (Semester III of III, generally spring)

In this, the final phase of the project itself, the PEL should focus the program faculty’s attention on understanding how the earlier processes of “review” and “assess” now lead them to consider specific changes to the program. In the “evaluate” phase, the PEL should revisit the initial “defining purpose” of the project, to ensure that questions are answered, concerns have been addressed, and issues have been properly researched. In evaluating the program, the PEL should lead the program faculty in a discussion of findings, recommendations, and new directions. As the project draws to a close, the program faculty should gain a sense of renewed purpose in serving their students.

Discuss and analyze data and information. Although some course-based assessment data may not yet be completed (for spring-only courses), the PEL should have a complete set of information and data from the “review” and “assess” phases of the project to be able to assemble the information together and begin to compile the project report. The discussion of the results of this research and inquiry should include colleagues and may include adjuncts and staff. Collaboration outside of the program, and even outside of the department, is encouraged. From these discussions, and from the input from the external review team visit, the PEL should be able to identify a set of findings and begin developing a set of recommended actions based on those findings.
In identifying and discussing the project’s findings, the following questions should be considered (though not necessarily answered directly):
1. Given the purpose(s) of the project, what are the major findings that the faculty should address?
2. What did the project validate about our program?
3. If Program Learning Outcomes are not being met, what can and should the faculty do to improve student success in meeting these outcomes?
4. What innovations might the program faculty bring to the program in the next five years, and what value and purpose would those innovations serve?
  Additionally, the PEL should devote specific attention in the final report addressing the following:
  1. Given the results of the assessment of Program Learning Outcomes, what specific changes do program faculty members propose to make to their teaching for the improvement of student learning?
  2. Given the results of the evaluation of the program, what specific changes does the program faculty propose to make in the design or delivery of the program?
  3. What actions and resources are necessary to allow for the recommendations in “a” and “b” above to be realized?
Host the external review team visit to campus. The contribution of the external review team to the program evaluation project is to provide the program faculty with a perspective outside of the institution but grounded in the discipline. Members of this team will have an interest in promoting student success but should not have a specific or vested interest in the success of MCC’s program. A review of the program by an objective panel of qualified participants provides the program faculty with its best opportunity to hear new ideas, receive sincere and constructive advice and criticism, and discuss new trends and ideas in the discipline or profession. Maintaining this objectivity brings integrity to the written comments and recommendations that the ERT will provide to the program faculty. For additional guidance on external review teams, consult Exhibit A: Guidelines for External Review Teams.
Compile, complete, and submit project report summarizing information, data, findings and recommendations for action. In the final stages of the project, the PEL should collaborate with his/her program colleagues, the department chair, and the division dean (or AVP or designee) to ensure that a completed assessment and analysis of program strengths and weaknesses has been conducted, and that the purpose(s) of conducting the program evaluation project has/have been addressed.
1. Prior to the finalization of the project, PEL should consult with program faculty and department chair with a completed draft of the report, to allow for final feedback and collaboration.
2. Also prior to the finalization of the project, the division dean (or AVP or designee) and the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment should receive completed drafts to allow for input and feedback.
3. Final project report should be submitted by June 30^th through the Academic Assessment Database. It will be reviewed by the department chair, the program coordinator, the division dean or designee, senior members of the Curriculum and Program Development Office, the Faculty Senate CAPE Committee chair, and the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment.

2.6.6 Phase Four: Act (generally early fall, following project completion)

The period following the completion of a program evaluation project (until the next cycle of evaluation) is known as the “action phase.” Often identified in educational literature as the “closing-the-loop” step of assessment and evaluation, this phase of program evaluation should focus the attention of department and program faculty members on “findings and fixes.”

Monroe Community College’s “full-circle assessment model” ensures program evaluation projects establish opportunities for programs and departments to organize their work with students in a strategic manner.

Moving Forward Forum. Within the same spring semester in which a program evaluation project report has been submitted, the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment convenes a meeting that initiates planning and acting for continuous improvement. Those attending this meeting should include:
1. Program Evaluation Leader
2. Department Chair and/or Program Coordinator
3. Division dean or AVP or designee
4. A Senior Member of the Office of Curriculum and Program Development
5. Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment
6. Faculty Senate CAPE Committee Chair
7. Other program/department faculty members (optional)
Provost’s Report. Program Evaluation Leaders should prepare a short executive summary of the program evaluation, including significant findings, program successes, plans/requirements for improvement, and an overview of the external review for the Provost. This executive summary may be delivered as a written document or presented during a meeting with the Provost. In addition, programs in the EDIWS and CTE division should present the executive summary to the VP of EDIWS and CTE, either as a written document or as a presentation during a meeting with the VP of EDIWS and CTE.
Plans for Continuous Improvement: Assessment as an Iterative Process. Following the completion of the moving forward forum, the PEL’s official service ends, and the department chair and/or program coordinator become the effective leaders to ensure that follow-up steps are taken to ensure that the project’s findings and recommendations are acted upon.
Departments completing program evaluation projects should develop a timeline with corresponding strategy to ensure continuity in follow-up on project findings. The following serves as a model for such a strategy:
1. Short-term actions to be taken (within 2 years)
  1. Action
  2. Individual(s) responsible
  3. Timeline to implement
2. Middle-term actions to be taken (within 4 years)
  1. Action
  2. Individual(s) responsible
  3. Timeline to implement
3. Long-term actions to be taken (within 6 years)
  1. Action
  2. Individual(s) responsible
  3. Timeline to implement
4. Interim Consultation. At the midpoint in the evaluation cycle, between the completion of the program evaluation project, and the commencement of the next, the Faculty Senate CAPE Committee shall initiate contact with programs to engage in follow-up discussions and assist them as requested on strategies to continue forward progress on follow-up actions.

2.6.7 Exhibit A: Guidelines for External Review Teams

External review teams should consist of two or more individuals. The make-up of these teams should be determined by the Program Evaluation Leader in consultation with his or her program faculty, with input from the department chair and division dean (or AVP or designee) and the Associate Director of Curriculum and Assessment. In addition, the names and titles of the external review team members should be submitted to the Provost and appropriate Dean or designee, as well as to the VP of EDIWS and CTE for programs in this division. The External Review Team may choose to visit MCC. They may also use technology in order to visit “remotely.”

General guidelines for External Review Team membership are as follows:

For transfer degree-granting programs:
1. At least one member of the team should be from a competitor or peer institution or from a four-year institution that receives substantial numbers of MCC’s program graduates; the individual should be familiar with the academic specialty of the MCC program being evaluated.
2. An additional member of the team may be from a second four-year institution that receives MCC graduates, or alternatively, an individual representing a significant employer that hires graduates from four-year institutions with the B.A. or B.S. degree in the area of academic specialty of the MCC program being evaluated.
3. Additional members of the External Review Team may be added at the discretion of the participating program faculty (and should be considered if more than one degree is being evaluated).
4. In general, the external reviewers should have no significant academic, professional or other relationship to full-time faculty in the program/department, have no previous significant or formal affiliation with the institution, and come from academic or professional institutions belonging to a peer or aspirational peer group (i.e., in the same Carnegie class and having a similar program size, scope and statistical, or perceived, reputational ranking). However, two-year programs may invite a local Advisory Board member to be one of the two external reviewers.
For any career and technical education academic certificate or degree-granting programs:
1. At least one member of the team should be from a competitor or peer institution or from an area employer that is known to hire substantial numbers of graduates; the individual should be familiar with the academic specialty of the MCC program being evaluated.
2. An additional member of the team may be from a second employer that hires MCC graduates, or alternatively, an individual considered to be a substantive area expert in the field of the MCC program being evaluated, such as a faculty member from a four-year institution, or a local business leader.
3. Additional members of the External Review Team may be added at the discretion of the participating program faculty (and should be considered if more than one degree is being evaluated).
4. In general, the external reviewers should have no significant academic, professional or other relationship to full-time faculty in the program/department, have no previous significant or formal affiliation with the institution, and come from academic or professional institutions belonging to a peer or aspirational peer group (i.e., in the same Carnegie class and having a similar program size, scope and statistical, or perceived, reputational ranking). However, two-year programs may invite a local Advisory Board member to be one of the two external reviewers.

2.7 Alternative Program Evaluations for Accredited Degree Programs (2014)

Removed 2020

2.8 Independent Study (2007)

2.8.1 Definition

Independent Study at MCC is a credit bearing study done by an individual student under the sponsorship of a faculty member who provides initial guidance, criticism, review and final evaluation of student performance. Existing courses in the MCC Catalog cannot be offered as Independent Studies.

2.8.2 Independent Study

Independent Study may be taken (in accordance with Student Program resolution Section 1.1.3) as a:

Program requirement
Program elective
General elective

2.8.3 Credit

No more than 15 Independent Study credits may be granted toward a degree. Credit or a project will be determined jointly by the student, faculty sponsor and department chairperson to accurately reflect the time and work involved. A recommended guide for credit allocation is one credit hour for the equivalent of every forty-five sessions of student academic activities of 50 minutes duration each (37.5 clock hours).

2.8.4 Grade

The grade for Independent Study projects will be in accordance with the College’s credit hours and quality points.

2.8.5 Approval (2017)

The sponsoring faculty member will initiate the approval process by completing the Application for Independent Study in the Curriculum Database. The following fields are required:

a short descriptive title
a prefix indicating the sponsoring department
a statement indicating that the course is not an existing course in the MCC catalog
the name and student number of the student
the reason for the Independent Study
the number of credit hours for the course
the academic activities required for completion of the course
the number of hours to be spent completing them in order to justify the number of credit hours to be awarded for the course
how the grade is to be determined

The proposal must then be approved by the department chairperson, the appropriate Academic Dean and the AVP of Curriculum and Program Development as indicated in the Curriculum Database.

2.8.6 Records

A paper copy of the application will be kept in the Career Services. The approved proposal will be kept in the Curriculum Database. The official College record (student transcript) will show the course prefix and the number 290 and a course title which will include the letters IS, for Independent Study, and a brief descriptive title, the sponsoring instructor, the credit hours and the final grade.

2.9 Academic Assessment of Student Learning and Program Evaluation – Faculty/Department – Rights and Responsibilities

Monroe Community College recognizes and upholds the 1940 AAUP statement on Academic Freedom and subsequent interpretive comments. This is recognized in the collective bargaining agreement with the Faculty Association.

The following list of rights and responsibilities is in no way an attempt to claim rights not given via Academic Freedom, nor is it an attempt to limit the rights allowed under the provisions of Academic Freedom as defined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), or supersede policies already established.
From the beginning, MCC has held that assessment is faculty-driven and faculty-owned with support from the administration. Additionally, the purpose of assessment is to improve student learning and curriculum design, not to assess or evaluate faculty performance.

Assessment is a significant component of the Middle States Commission of Higher Education accreditation process. To account for student learning outcomes and the attendant issues raised by (institutional and program accreditation), the faculty and administration will continue to (work collaboratively).

In regards to Assessment and Program Evaluation:

2.9.1 Each individual Faculty member has the right:

To accept or decline a leadership role in assessment
To select/create/refine the assessment tool in accordance with departmental policies
To determine for themselves an appropriate response to their assessment
For findings not to be used to evaluate the quality of instruction or to compare instructors
For findings not to be used for promotion/retention decisions against their choice
For anonymity to be preserved where possible

2.9.2 Each Faculty member has the responsibility, consistent with departmental policy/practice:

To participate in Assessment/Program Evaluation, which may include, but is not limited to:
1. Becoming knowledgeable about specific departmental assessment practices
2. Engaging in department assessment practices at the request of the Program Evaluation Leader or Discipline Assessment Leader (PEL or DAL)
3. Administering the assessment tool
4. Collecting data and reporting the findings
5. Analyzing the findings and taking actions in response to the findings as requested
To share the assessment tool with appropriate PEL or DAL
To provide the Assistant Director of Curriculum and Program Assessment with access to the assessment tool

2.9.3 Each Department has the right:

To request who leads departmental assessment
To administrative support for assessment/program evaluation, such as:
1. Institutional Research Support
2. Release time for the support of assessment projects as determined by the Provost, as
3. Assistance of the Assistant Director of Curriculum and Assessment
To determine for itself the pace and substance of its response to assessment findings
For findings not to be used to compare departments
To choose how and with whom to share its assessment tools
To manage its General Education course list which includes proposing the addition or removal of courses
To choose the location for storage of the assessment tools and samples of scored student work**
To select/refine/create assessment tools consistent with best practices and departmental policy and practice

2.9.4 Each Department[2] has the responsibility:

To ensure assessment of student learning (in discipline-specific General Education courses) and evaluation of program is conducted in consultation with the Assistant Director of Curriculum and Assessment
To support training in assessment and program evaluation
To analyze assessment findings and oversee implementation of the action plan which may include:
1. Researching pedagogical and curriculum theory and practices
2. Creating and implementing new curriculum
3. Ensuring the continuation of current successful practices
To respond to assessment findings in a timely To oversee production of required reports by PEL/DAL
To submit reports to the Assistant Director of Curriculum and Assessment to be archived in a secure central area
To maintain documentation of the location of assessment tools, and samples of scored student work[3]
1. Scored student work¹¹ will be stored for at least one full cycle of program evaluation
To ensure all General Education courses running are assessed per cycle
To acknowledge and support the program evaluation efforts by faculty

2.10 Distance Education Assessment Policy (2014)

In course-based assessment projects, assessment of specific courses must include by design sections delivered fully online. Additionally, the number of online sections included in the assessment should be sufficient to ensure proper representation of student learning in the alternate format.

For courses offered in both formats (face-to-face, online):

All course learning outcomes (CLOs) selected for assessment should be the same for both delivery
In the discretion of each department, the means of assessment can vary to accommodate the course delivery
The a) assessment instrument, b) scores correlating to each level of achievement (exceeds, meets, ), and c) standard or benchmark should be comparable across all course delivery methods. For example, to “meet” a standard of learning should be consistent across delivery formats.

For courses only offered in an online format:

Work with the MCC Assistant Director of Curriculum and Assessment to select the CLO(s) to assess based on current curriculum mapping
The means of assessment should be tailored for the CLO(s) being
The a) assessment instruments, b) scores correlating to each level of achievement (exceeds, meets, ), and c) standards or benchmarks should be comparable to those used by your department in assessing face-to-face courses.

2.10.1 Requirement to Report Online Learning Results Separately

When reporting the results of student learning in course-based assessment projects, separate data for results obtained from fully online courses (versus those from traditional face-to-face courses) should be included. The suggested format is the “MCC Student Learning Assessment Template”.

It would be permissible for data-based comparisons of student learning to be made as a result of inquiry by
Consistent with “Academic Assessment of Student Learning and Program Evaluation Faculty/Department Rights and Responsibilities”, comparison of student learning success should not be used to evaluate or compare

Footnotes

[1] Imputed credit is defined as credit earned which cannot be applied toward a degree or certificate or used to calculate a student’s grade point average at Monroe Community College, but carries with it eligibility for state financial aid.

[2] “Department” does not necessarily connote the department chair specifically. A department may choose to charge a subgroup of faculty members to take responsibility for assessment activities.

[3] Scored student work will consist of, at minimum, two samples of each level of achievement.