Curriculum Committee Charges

Curriculum Committee Charges

2009-2010

DRAFT

Charge 1: Complete all curriculum changes and submit them for CCI Graduate Studiesfor approval.

• Need a motion on title change for IS 582, formerlyInformation Systems: Planning and Evaluation). Suggested new title faculty voted on via email is Information Systems: Design and Implementation.

Vote on the revised UT Graduate Catalog statement regarding the GPA required for graduate student admission to SIS and the misstated GPA of 3.0 and phrase: “… or a satisfactory graduate degree grade point average…” The actual requirements for admissions that need to be reflected in the UT Graduate Catalog should read:

“Applicants with a final undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 3.25 and Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores above the fifty percentile will be accepted. Applicants who have completed twelve hours of work toward a graduate degree and have earned a 3.0 grade point average are not required to take the GRE examination.”

Charge 2: Provide a list of course changes approved by faculty and submit to CCI Graduate Studies for approval. [Faculty who teach courses that will be merged should submit old description of each course, a description of the new course under which the courses have been merged, and provide a rationale for the merge]. [Faculty who teach courses that have been eliminated should submit a description of each of these courses and provide a rationale for the elimination].

Charge 3: Examine elective courses starting spring 2010. Prioritize the elective courses and propose a list of top prioritycourses that should be offered on a regular basis along with courses that should be offered every two years.

Charge 4: Examine the core and elective courses adjunct faculty teaches that can be taught by regular faculty starting spring 2010.

Charge 5: Assess the impact of curriculum changes on faculty and students. [Faculty should document negative and positive experiences of such changes, as applicable, and submit them to Dania Bilal, Chair of the Curriculum Committee.Example: Impact of teaching two sections of a core course on students and the teaching faculty. In collaboration with Bharat Mehra, survey students about impact of curriculum changes on their learning and achievement. Example:How large classes in core courses beginning fall 09 impact DE students’ learning and how students feel about being in these classes?

Charge 6: Revisit course data mining developed in spring 2009. Based on Ed’s message to Peiling dated 5/15/08, “there are 6 key questions regarding the future direction of the program:

1)To what degree do we retain an on-campus program beyond the 9 core credit hours. How do we determine which face-to-face courses should be offered.

2)How do we characterize the similarities/differences between on-campus students and DE student in terms of demographics, student credit hours taken, etc.

3)What is the best way of keeping track between PC only classes and DE classes and how do we ensure equity of access to courses between DE students and on-campus students.

4)How do we further streamline the curriculum in terms of eliminating courses, collapsing courses and generally modifying the curriculum.

5)How do we identify hi-yield /low yield courses in the context of work load equity—do we need to have a policy about high yield/low yield course in terms of workload.

6)What are the changing demographics effecting on-campus vs. DE enrollments.”

8/19/09 DB