The Provost appointed a task force in July 2003 to address several curricular issues at the university. Pertinent information and task force recommendations follow.

TASK FORCE FOR UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULA
PROVOST AND FACULTY SENATE

Premise

A 21st century student deserves a 21st century education. This includes having access to 21st century information resources and acquiring the knowledge to use those resources appropriately.

General Statement

Recently, the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) has precipitated significant curricular changes to enhance student graduation rates and reduce overall costs. Toward that end, TBR has approved a revised general education curriculum and has instructed each campus to reduce undergraduate degree requirements to a total of 120 hours unless programmatic constraints dictate otherwise. With both of these programs now underway, we need to take a fresh look at the manner in which we respond to the students and approach curricular issues.

Charge

With these considerations in mind, the Provost is forming the Task Force for Undergraduate Curricula to recommend comprehensive and ongoing methods for integrating overall learning objectives including:

• how to the balance general education, degree requirements, and lower/upper division hours;
• how to improve the connection between general education and major requirements;
• how to integrate non-declared students into existing programs;
• whether cohort programs would be useful in an undergraduate environment;
• how writing, critical thinking, technical fluency, global perspectives, diversity, multicultural perspectives, and ethics should be incorporated into the curricula;
• whether ACAD 1100 and Element K, or other educational opportunities are appropriate for our students and, if so, how they can be used most effectively;
• how student experiences should be broadened with internships, freshmen programs, research, service learning, etc.;
• how to use retention strategies in the curriculum;
• how to assess the value of minors, given The University's resource base, and what role minors should play in the curricula;
• how to structure systematic methods for faculty oversight, assessment of the curricula, outcomes-based assessments for each program, and other continuous improvement programs.

  Reporting Structure

  The Task Force reports to the Provost. The Faculty Senate and the faculty will have authority for approving and/or revising the task force report.

  Members

  Name	Unit	Representing	Affiliation
  Campbell, John	CFA	Faculty Senate	Voting
  Clement, Jane	Psychological Svcs.	Student Affairs	Ex Officio
  Ellis, John	Academic Affairs	Academic Affairs	Ex Officio
  Danehower, Carol	FCBE	Curriculum Comm.	Voting
  Fischer, Rick	CFA	General Faculty	Voting
  Frankle, Bob	CAS	Gen. Ed. Committee	Voting
  Hanneken, John	CAS	Faculty Senate	Voting
  Hill-Clarke, Kandi	COE	General Faculty	Voting
  Houk, Larry (Chair)	CAS	General Faculty	Voting
  Lipinski, Marty	Engineering	Gen. Ed. Committee	Voting
  Luckey, Joe	CAAS	Advising	Voting
  Lukawitz, Jim	FCBE	General Faculty	Voting
  Luttrell, Marge	Nursing	Curriculum Comm.	Voting
  Meredith, Brian	Enrollment Services	Enrollment Services	Ex Officio
  Nichols, Broderick	University College	Curriculum Comm.	Voting
  Park, Betsy	Libraries	General Faculty	Voting
  Serex, Cathy	Academic Affairs	Curriculum Planning	Ex Officio
  Thurmond, Karen	Academic Affairs	Advising	Voting

  Recommendations
  1. It should be recognized, at both the University and college levels, that the transition to the new TBR requirements has been accompanied by considerable uncertainty. Therefore, when evaluating student transcripts for purposes of graduation, University and college officials should realize that during this transitional period students may have registered for a "wrong" course in good faith and thus should exercise understanding and flexibility when determining if graduation requirements were met.

  2. A central challenge that faces any committee charged with suggesting reform of undergraduate education is the loss of institutional memory. Such institutional amnesia is a good thing in that new people on a new committee may be more open to new ideas, but it is a bad thing in that it takes time to figure out why things are the way they are so that they can be reasonably sure that any changes proposed will be productive. Therefore, future university committees charged with proposing changes should leave an official electronic summary of their deliberations, including statistics that were gathered. At the end of a committee's life the committee should summarize the status of the issues as they were when the committee began its deliberations, and briefly summarize why the committee made the recommendations that they made.

  3. All departmental, college, and university degree requirements should be stated very clearly in the undergraduate catalog. All written documents, such as degree sheets and four-year plans, distributed by departments and colleges to students and advisors should be consistent with language used in the catalog. Where appropriate, departments should recommend to its majors course work that they believe to be desirable, even if not required. Departments should be very careful in using "recommended" and "required" as it relates to written policy.

  4. When colleges and departments review their degree programs to meet the 120 hour requirement, they should seek to leave some room in their programs for electives. Such electives are important to allow students the room to take internships, explore the possibility of minors, or take ACAD 1100 as a freshman where appropriate. Also, students who have not declared a major need to have the flexibility to take a course or two in a couple of different disciplines to help them decide on a major. Furthermore, the university accepts a substantial number of transfer students who sometimes bring with them course work that can only be assigned elective credit.

     A review of BA/BS requirements should be made in the interest of keeping or even increasing elective hours for some majors. This includes the use of electives and courses at the upper division level. BA degrees currently require 18-19 hours in addition to General Education while the BS requires an additional 15 hours.

  5. Minors may be appropriate in certain areas and thus should be allowed. However, the university should not require minors since many degree programs do not have room for minors within the 120 hour limit for graduation.

  6. The university should monitor for the next few years the extent to which UofM students either concurrently or in summers take General Education courses at nearby TBR community colleges to see if the new TBR "core" requirements result in more UofM students taking courses at nearby community colleges to meet General Education requirements.

  7. Beginning in the fall of 2004, there should no longer be a University computer literacy requirement. This requirement was introduced in 1984 as a result of a Tennessee Board of Regents mandate. However, computer literacy is not part of the new TBR "core" and is no longer a Board mandate. Moreover, most students who enter the university possess computer skills. Many degree programs appropriately presume students have these skills and incorporate computer technology into their courses. For the few students who lack the requisite literacy to perform satisfactorily in these courses, the university provides, and should continue to provide, self-taught standardized packages that enable students to acquire particular computer skills that they may lack.

  8. Starting in the Fall of 2004, the university should no longer require a sequence to satisfy the General Education Natural Science requirement. While a sequence should still be an option for those who want or need to study a science in depth, students should be allowed the option of obtaining greater breadth by taking two different sciences to meet the General Education Natural Science requirement.

  9. The concepts of "writing", "integrative" and "computation" are valuable and important for university graduates.

  10. The "computation intensive course" [C] requirement should be eliminated from curriculum.

  11. The "integrative course" [I] requirement should be retained, with the provision that those departments that offer "I" courses with no prerequisites either establish prerequisites for the course or provide justification why such prerequisites are not necessary for a course that is supposed to integrate previous learning.

  12. The "writing intensive course" [W] requirement should be retained, with the provision that degree programs can give "W" credit to upper division courses transferred from another institution that appears to be writing intensive.

  13. The General Education Program comprises a lot more than the Writing Intensive requirement, the Computation Intensive requirement, the Integration requirement, and the requirement of a sequence in Natural Science, including a set of criteria for each General Education category. However, there is not sufficient time to review all the components of the current program, but in light of the new TBR "core" a thorough review of the General Education Program seems in order.

      Recommendation: A committee appointed by the Faculty Senate should be charged with reviewing the General Education Program and making recommendations regarding the program to the Senate by a certain date set by the Senate. Any recommendations made by the committee must be consistent with the new TBR "core". This recommendation is made with the understanding that it will be subject to the previous recommendation (1.), now approved, that in this transitional period graduation analysts will use flexibility and understanding in determining whether students have met degree requirements.

  14. The University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UUCC) should be responsible for TBR general education oversight including approval of courses.

  15. Under the new TBR 41 hour "core" program, a student satisfying a core requirement at any TBR institution will thereby satisfy that same requirement when transferring to the University of Memphis, even if the particular course is not included in our list of approved General Education courses. This raises the question of how courses transferred from non-TBR institutions are to be treated in regard to satisfying the 41 hour "core".

      Recommendation: As a general principle, for the purposes of determining whether a transfer course satisfies one of the "core" requirements, courses transferred from a non-TBR institution should be treated in a way that is analogous to the treatment of courses transferred from a TBR institution. For example, if a particular mathematics course from STCC must be accepted as meeting our mathematics requirement, then a very similar course from, say, Arkansas State, should be accepted as meeting our "core" mathematics requirement as well.

      Within this general principle, specific decisions will still have to be made on individual cases.

      Recommendation: Some central office or body should be assigned the task of deciding whether a particular transfer course from a non-TBR institution can be used to satisfy part of the 41 hour "core" requirements. This would provide consistency across the university in evaluating transfer credit as applied to the 41hour core.

  16. Since the First Year Experience Committee has been created and is meeting monthly, its charge should include consideration of course work that first year students typically take. It is the hope that the First Year Experience Committee obtains a better understanding of what students experience in course work during their Freshmen year and thereby use this understanding to make recommendations concerning class size, use of adjunct faculty, and possible linkages to extracurricular activities. An example of further consideration by the First Year Committee is the continuation of ACAD 1100. The UG Curricular Task Force views opportunities such as ACAD 1100 as a valuable elective, but does not see it as a required course. This allows the First Year Experience Committee an opportunity to study further the value of connecting academics with extracurricular activities.

  17. There is considerable national evidence that cohort programs, or learning communities as they are often called, have a positive effect on student performance and retention. (See, for example, Nancy S. Shapiro and Jodi H. Levine, Creating Learning Communities, 1999). Such programs may take many forms, from a simple pairing of two courses to having students with a common interest taking several courses in common. These programs can be especially effective at large, commuter universities like ours, where students often do not get to know their classmates well. At the University of Memphis, some individuals and individual programs have successfully encouraged cohort programs. The School of Nursing, for example, encourages its students to enroll in the same section of certain courses.

      Recommendation: That an office within Academic Affairs collect and disseminate best practices, both nationally and locally, in regards to cohort programs. This office could encourage the development of cohort programs, where appropriate, and provide interested faculty with information on what works well and what does not.

  18. Supplemental Instruction (SI) can be very effective in helping students learn material in courses that are traditionally difficult. Educational Support Programs (ESP) seeks to provide SI for selected sections of courses in which more than 50% of the students receive final grades of D, F, or W. (Many universities provide SI for courses with more than a 30% D, F, or W rate). SI could be even more important in the future, since ESP may no longer be able to provide as much individual tutoring, as scholarship students are no longer required to perform a minimum number of tutoring hours. Recommendation: The University should support Supplemental Instruction at an increased level so that more sections of traditionally difficult courses could be served by SI. The Schedule of Classes should indicate those sections which will be supported by SI.

  19. Many colleges and departments already operate successful internship programs. In addition, a University office of Director of Internships has been established under the leadership of Dr. Dixie Crase to support and foster internships. Given this, there is no need to make any recommendations for additional measures in the area of internships.

      There is also some service learning going on at the university, though at a lesser scale than internships. Service learning should be encouraged, since it can significantly enhance student civic capacities.

      Recommendation: The office of the Director of Internships, currently headed by Dr. Dixie Crase, should collect and disseminate best practices, both nationally and locally, with a view to promoting more service learning at the University of Memphis. This recommendation presumes that Dr. Crase's office will be given the necessary resources to collect and disseminate this information.

  20. The University Honors Program sponsors an annual forum where undergraduates present the results of research projects that they have undertaken. Recommendation: This forum should be supported and publicized to encourage more undergraduate participation. Additional funding should be provided to support undergraduate research. Scholarship students should be allowed to perform undergraduate research under the tutelage of a faculty member as one way of fulfilling their scholarship obligations.

  21. A task force comprised of representatives from the Office of the Registrar, advising units, First Year Experience, and faculty should develop a pilot program for issuing midterm grades. The findings will be reported to the Provost's Advisory Council on Academic Advising (PACAA).

  22. One issue that needs to be addressed in the context of retention strategies and the curriculum is the large number of sections taught by adjuncts and graduate assistants, especially at the lower division level. For example, only 8% of all students taking lower division English courses in the fall of 2003 were taught by full time faculty, while 59% were taught by adjuncts. Indeed, in only 14 departments were over half the students in lower division courses taught by full time faculty. That this may have some negative consequences for both retention and student learning is suggested by focus group interviews of students conducted last year as part of a retention project supervised by Dr. Rosie Bingham. This study revealed significant student discontent with adjunct and graduate student teaching and found "that the farther the student is from the full time faculty member the less satisfied the student is with his or her learning experience."

      Recommendation: The University should seek to increase the number of sections taught by full time faculty, particularly at the lower division level and especially in the basic skills courses of English composition, mathematics, and oral communication. The University should offer workshops and other teaching development opportunities for graduate assistants and adjuncts. Those who participate could be given a small stipend to supplement the meager compensation graduate assistants and especially adjuncts receive.

  23. A committee should be given the charge of developing ways of assessing General Education, focusing on how well students are achieving the overall learning goals set for General Education. While the University does currently seek to assess General Education learning through use of the Senior exit exam, there are two perceived problems with this approach. First, there is some question whether this national test adequately assesses our specific University General Education goals. Second, the results from this exam do not get fed back to faculty teaching General Education in a way that can be used to improve student learning. An assessment of General Education should provide information that can be effectively used by students while still enrolled at the University; by faculty who teach General Education courses; and by the University to assess the General Education Program as a whole.

  24. During deliberations to address the following item of the Provost's charge to the task force:
      • how to structure systematic methods for faculty oversight, assessment of the curricula, outcomes-based assessments for each program, and other continuous improvement programs. it was determined that there are a variety of assessment activities occurring at The University of Memphis. In its preliminary meetings, the Assessment Subcommittee invited administrators from two academic colleges (Business and Education) and the Director of Academic Programs and Assessment to describe assessment activities in the colleges and the university. These colleges are receiving external encouragement to institute a model of assessment that provides for continuous improvement. In an effort to employ a model of continuous improvement through an assessment cycle, it is clear that the definition of outcomes is the beginning of the process. Some issues that need to be considered are:
      • What does the university or academic area want to happen?
      • What are the characteristics of success in what is being assessed?
      • What are the goals and objectives of the university or academic area?
      • How does the university's mission and strategic plan inform decisions made about curriculum? Having defined the intended outcomes, the assessment model then is able to measure those outcomes. Measurement will take a variety of forms, and should be constructed to determine success of program and participants. Significant quantitative and qualitative measures may be used to assess program effectiveness and student learning. Once the data have been gathered and analyzed to assess program and participants, some issues must be examined:
      • What do the data suggest?
      • What did the data indicate about the courses, programs, and participants?
      • What goals and objectives were met?
      • What goals and objectives need further resources, definition, or analysis? Finally, conclusions should be based on the analysis of the data. If it has been determined that a particular program is not effective, are there aspects of that program that are effective or can be improved, or should the program be terminated in favor of a more effective one? If the analysis of the data suggests that the students did not learn what was assumed to be taught, how can the program be improved to more effectively accomplish its goals and objectives? The answers to these and other questions based on the assessment data will determine the agenda for the next cycle of assessment, at which time the assessment process begins again. There are a variety of resources available for higher education applications of this model. Accrediting bodies are mentioned in many of these resources.

        http://www.nln.org/ce/CurrDev-day3v2/
        http://www.uwstout.edu/mba/
        http://www.cob.lamar.edu/assessmentCI.html
        http://www.winona.msus.edu/air/nca/nca98.htm
        http://www.fsu.edu/~smrmpe/program_assessment_continous_improvement.html

  Recommendations

  Assessment of programs and participants should be mandated for all academic programs. Continuous improvement methods should be used in the assessment of programs and curriculum.

  A cycle of assessment should be identified and communicated in the form of an assessment calendar.

  A group of individuals should be appointed by the faculty to guide assessment as specified in the recommendations made by curriculum subcommittee.

  Goals, objectives, and outcomes of curriculum should be consistent with university's mission, values, vision, goals and objectives.

  Assistance in the area of assessment should be provided to those programs that need it.