Improving Operational Efficiency and the Curriculum Development by hqc73958


									Improving Operational Efficiency and the
   Curriculum Development/Approval

    Cuyahoga Community College
    2008 Innovation Of The Year Award
                  Kathy Telban
     Director, Curriculum Development and
        Learning Outcomes Assessment
           Other Team Members Not Present:
    Cheryl Kovach, Coordinator of Curricular Systems
                Tani Ali, Office Assistant
                   College Profile
   Founded in 1963
   Three Campuses
   Headcount – approx. 25,000 students
   Programs:
       144 degree and certificate programs
       1800 courses
   Faculty:
       349-370 Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty
       1,000 Adjuncts

                          Curriculum Office
                                     District Director,
                                     Development &
                                   Learning Outcomes

      Coordinator of
        Curricular                                                  Office Assistant

Curriculum Office Mission: The District Curriculum Office provides leadership and support for
all credit curriculum development, approval processes and support systems in a responsive
and friendly manner while ensuring curriculum integrity and availability.

• Maintain the course outlines/program sequences
• Contribute 80% of the content to the College Catalog
• Create the Board of Trustees resolutions for curriculum
• Liaison to the Ohio Board of Regents (new degrees/concentrations)
• Work with Marketing to ensure brochures, website, and advertising that contains
  curriculum is accurate
• Provide curriculum changes to other departments so systems & materials can be
  updated (counseling program planners, DARS, CAS, etc.)
               Focus Of The
              Curriculum Office
   Reducing curriculum development and approval
    cycle time
   Improving communications and support for
   Improve stakeholder access and satisfaction
   Improve the quality of the curriculum
   Improve the overall operations of the unit

Multi-faceted Systems Approach to
      Improving Performance

          Process                  Define Roles/
          Map                      Responsibilities


    Provide                     Assess/Evaluate/
    Training/                   Improve

                Create/Update           Process
                Help/Training           (Re)Development

Curriculum Life Cycle
                                    Phase I:
                               Generate & Evaluate

                                        New        N
                                      Program?            Stop


                                       Phase II:
 N                 Revision?                                        Phase III:
  Phase VIII:           N
Assess to Adjust
                                                                     Phase IV:
                                                                 Additional Planning
                                                                 And Development
      Phase VII:
   Assess to Advance

                                                       Phase V:
                        Phase VI:                      Prepare to
                     Teach & Assess                      Teach
                        To Assist

            Curriculum Development/
               Approval Process
             Before 2004                               After 2004
 Paper based                           Automated
 Decentralized                         Centralized

Challenges                             Benefits
 Curriculum proposals were lost or     Proposals stay in the system
  delayed                               No format issues
 Format of proposals were              One version of the truth
  inconsistent                          Total transparency
 Revision control issues during the    Allows for earlier feedback to initiators
  review/approval process               Updates immediately available to
 The process was a mystery              internal/external community
 Little documentation, training or     Access and some support available
  communication                         Extract info for Catalog
Results                                Results
 Frustration                           Errors reduced/eliminated
 Long approval cycle                   Improved stakeholders communication
 Avoiding the process                                                          7
     Development vs Approval Queues
    The Approval Process is based on what proposal type is selected when
    creating a curriculum proposal in CurricUNET.

    New courses, Major Revisions, Program Sequences

Initiator     Development   Initiator   Technical Review       Approval
submits          Queue      Submits     (Curriculum Office)     Queue

    Minor Revisions, Special Topics, Resource Updates,
    Methods of Evaluation Updates, Course Deletions

                      Approval Queue

             Curriculum Development/
                Approval Process

Board of Trustees                                    Faculty Counterparts
Exec VP of Academic and                              Associate Deans
Student Affairs                                      Curriculum Office
VP of Academic Affairs                               Librarians

                          Chair of    CADRE
                          CADRE       Subcommittee

     Curriculum and Degree
Requirements Committee (CADRE)

Governance Committee
Representatives appointed by Faculty Senate,
 AAUP, SEIU 1199 And Exec VP of ASA
Faculty Chair and Secretary
Review and recommend any program/course additions,
 revisions and deletions
Review and recommend policies and procedures for degree

        Technology Implementation
            CurricUNET                      Share Point Portal
 Planning and development –         Planning and development –
  May 2002 to Dec. 2002               May 2004 – August 2004
 Pilot, training & user manual      Launched Fall 2004
  Summer 2003 – Spring 2004          Continually updated
 Officially launched - Fall 2004    Reviewed annually
 Fully implemented – Fall 2005
  Function based help, laminated
  quick tips and training

              Support for Users
Help Documentation
   Laminated Quicktips card
   Developed User Manual with
    Individual Help Topics
   Help Documents posted on
    CurricUNET site/available 24/7 both
    from inside and outside the College
   Breeze presentation on system and
    on developing learning

             Support for Users
Training/Personal Assistance

 Individual/Group Training Sessions
 Early assistance
 Phone Coaching

       Various levels of computer proficiency

Academic Support Tools
      CurricUNET                                            Archived Outlines/Sequences
         WIDS                       Curriculum                       College Catalogs
                                  Development                              ATL
                                      Portal                           Blackboard
                                                                      200 ESU Pool
                                                                  Faculty Development
   CD Website Links
                                                                          i Web
    College Sources
                                                                  Service Learning Portal
Government & Education
                                                                     Transfer Center
   Learning Sources

                   One stop for every thing curriculum related!                         14
     Changes in How Work is Done
   All users needed to adjust to the system notifying them
    when curriculum was ready for their review
   Establishment of deadlines “guarantee” of a review
    during the cycle
   Curriculum Office update processes and curriculum
    database log
   CADRE subcommittee reviews online and uses standard
    checklists and templates. All subcommittee reports are
    stored on a discussion site on the Curriculum Portal
   Users can self serve through the Portal

WHAT                                   STAKEHOLDERS        HOW
1. Living the Mission                  Initiators          Surveys
   Responsive, Knowledgeable, Follow
   through, Friendly                   Associate Deans     Direct
2. Suggestions for Improving                               Feedback
   Process/Support                     Curriculum
3. Effectiveness of Help Documents,    Committee           Observation
   Coaching and Training
4. Identify Best Practices
5. Usability of CurricUNET                                 Usage Stats
6. Usability of Curriculum Portal

7. Curriculum Integrity                Internal/External   Track Errors
8. Curriculum Cycle Time (Technical    Internal/External   Analyze
   Review, CADRE, Board)               Community           Curriculum

          Curriculum Development/
             Approval Process
                        Data Tracking Before 2004
Excel Spreadsheet and MS Word
 File No (date received and academic year)
 Subject Area
 Course Number
 Course Title
 Proposal Type
 Initiator
 Board Approval Date
 New Course
 Title Change
 Delete Course
 Returned to Initiator

         Curriculum Development/
            Approval Process
          Data Tracking After 2004 (Additional Fields added)
                           Access database

Date received                            Academic year
Technical Review date                    Sent to CADRE date
CADRE Approval Date                      Outcomes Developed
Submitted with Outcomes Received         Outcomes Coaching
CADRE subcommittee                       Campus of Initiator
Number change                            Description change
Prerequisite change                      Credit change
New Sequence                             Change Sequence
Delete Sequence                          Credits

                         Reducing Cycle Time
                                       Percent of                                   Percent of
            Percent of    Percent of   Proposals     Percent of    Percent of       Proposals     Percent of
            Proposals     Proposals    completed     Proposals     Proposals        Completed     Proposals
            completed     completed    in two to     completed     completed        in nine       that took
Academic    in one        in one to    three         in three to   in six to nine   months to     over a year   Total # of
Year        month         two months   months        six months    months           one year      to complete   Proposals

2000-2001         4.67%       11.45%        10.75%        30.37%          5.84%          10.28%        24.53%            428

2004-2005        22.67%       39.53%        27.33%         5.23%          3.20%           9.01%         1.45%            344

2005-2006        11.43%       41.43%         8.57%        16.67%          8.10%          11.43%         3.81%            210

2006-2007        15.97%        7.00%        26.89%        39.78%          2.80%           4.48%         1.68%            357

Under the paper based system, 24.5% of all proposals
 submitted took over a year to be reviewed and approved.
After 2004, only 2-4% of proposals have taken over a year
 to be reviewed and approved.

        Improvements based on
      Feedback from Stakeholders
   Modified several screens due to user feedback
   Upgraded to new text editor which made several
    screens more user-friendly
   Created Quick Tips for Associate Deans
   Standardize CADRE subcommittee processes
   Created training, documents, and links to post in
    the Curriculum Portal
   Provide support earlier in the process
   Provide coaching/training on writing outcomes
           Advisory Committees                          Campus
                                     Associate Deans   Presidents
           (Business & Industry)
 Faculty                     Academic Deans                  Other Administrators
                                                                   and staff
  Program                                                                      College President/
  Managers                                                                     Board of Trustees

                                                                        Initiator Submits for
                                                                          approval to Vice
New program proposal                                                   President of Academic

                                   New Program Initiatives
                                    College will invest in                                 21
                 Best Practices/
                Lessons Learned
   Sponsor empowered/supported group
   Curriculum Office and Chair of CADRE partnership
   Define and track key metrics (score card)
   Use of reflective practice on an annual basis
   Make changes based on data
   Provide just-in-time and just-enough support/training
   Leverage Technology
   High Touch vs. High Tech
   Celebrate successes and partnerships
   Communicate, communicate, communicate with all

          Continuous Improvement
   Automate Counseling Planners
   Develop/automate Program Assessment Process
   Align workshops with approval of release time for
    curriculum development/revision
   Align the Generate and Evaluate Phase with the
    Development/Approval deadlines

                 Links to Systems

                         Curriculum Portal
                              (sign on needed)

  Curriculum Development Approval System
                  (Search feature available to anyone)

For more information, contact: Kathy Telban at 216-987-4797;


To top