Skip to content

Policies and Procedures

This document outlines policies and procedures of the Snow College Curriculum Committee. Please see the Curriculum Committee Constitution for details about the powers and duties of the committee.

All Snow College programs and curriculum are governed by policies approved by the Utah State Board of Regents for the Utah System of Higher Education, including these:

The following policies and procedures outline how Snow College approves and oversees programs and curriculum. Any questions about these policies may be discussed with division representatives or the committee chair.

 

Master Syllabi

  1. Master Syllabi Procedures Overview

    The Curriculum Committee will review all new curriculum proposals and changes in syllabi. Changes are reviewed by the Curriculum Committee after review and approval from the department chair and division dean. The following chart summarizes the master syllabi full review process. The Curriculum Committee regularly evaluates this process and makes changes as needed.

     

    New Course Syllabi 5 Year Review
    Department identifies need for course Department notified of course expiration
    Department designates appropriate full-time faculty member to create course Department designates appropriate full-time faculty member to revise course
    Course created in consultation with Curriculum Committee division representative and General Education Committee division representative (GE courses only) Course revised in consultation with Curriculum Committee division representative and General Education Committee division representative (GE courses only)
    Course reviewed by GE division representative (GE courses only) Course reviewed by GE division representative (GE courses only)
    Course reviewed by Curriculum Committee division representative (non-GE courses) Course reviewed by Curriculum Committee division representative (non-GE courses)
    Course reviewed by department chair Course reviewed by department chair
    Course reviewed by division dean Course reviewed by division dean
    Course review by GE Committee (GE courses only) Course review by GE Committee (GE courses only)
    Course reviewed by Curriculum Committee Course reviewed by Curriculum Committee

    Courses should be submitted using Argos information management system. All information, including the catalog copy, master syllabus, approvals, and notifications, is handled within the online system.

  2. Courses Needing Review

    • All new courses must go through full review process. 
    • All existing courses go through a full review at least every 5 years or if any of the following occur:
      • Change in the course number or course name
      • Change in the number of credit hours
      • Significant revision of course content, such as outcomes, scope, content, or method of instructions
      • Cross listing of courses between two or more departments or programs
      • Change in resources
    • The following changes do not need to go through the full review process:
      • Rewording of catalog description
      • Change in prerequisites or corequisites
      • Minor changes in the organization of a course
      • Minor updates in course content.
      • Change in KPI percentages
    • When courses need minor changes, program managers should notify the Curriculum Committee representative for presentation before the committee.
    • Program managers or department chairs may request courses to be inactivated by notifying their Curriculum Committee representatives.

  3. New and Reviewed Courses

    Division deans and department chairs may create courses per the needs of students, the requirements of accrediting bodies, and the development of programs. The following guidelines should be observed in the creation of new courses and review of existing courses.

    • Courses should be created only if the college has resources sufficient to teach the course.
    • Courses should reflect trends at sister educational institutions, in the industries, etc.
    • Courses should be rigorous and improve educational opportunities for students.
    • Courses should parallel requirements by the state and should have high transferability.

  4. Syllabi Author Creation/Review

    • Authors are determined by department chairs or division deans. Authors should have significant training in and knowledge of content area of course.
    • When creating or editing syllabi, course authors should follow the most current Syllabus Instructions and Requirements document.
    • Syllabi authors have a responsibility to make all requested edits before syllabi are approved.

  5. Committee Member Review

    • Curriculum and GE Committee members have access to syllabi in their respective divisions within Argos beginning with the In Progress status. GE Committee members have access only to GE syllabi.
    • Curriculum and GE Committee members are responsible for reviewing and approving syllabi within their divisions before syllabi are reviewed by the respective full committee. They should be aware of any changes new syllabi might make to programs.
    • Curriculum and GE Committee members are responsible for communicating decisions regarding syllabi status and other relevant matters to the appropriate individuals within the body they represent (syllabi authors, department chairs, deans, etc.).
    • Curriculum and GE Committee members should use the rubric and guidelines defined by their respective committees.

  6. Department Chair and Dean Review

    • Department chairs should review syllabi according to policies and practices within their discipline and department. They should use the Syllabus Instructions and Requirements document as they review courses. They should complete the resource field within the Argos database.
    • Division deans should review syllabi according to policies and practices within their discipline and division. They should use the Syllabus Instructions and Requirements document as they review courses. They should complete the resource field within the Argos database.

  7. GE Committee Review (GE Courses Only)

    • The GE Committee will review GE courses according their established policies and procedures.
    • GE course designation changes go into effect the next academic catalog year, unless otherwise approved. Changes must be approved by both committees by the end of January.

  8. Curriculum Committee Review

    • Curriculum Committee members receive access to all syllabi indicated as pending in the Argos database. Curriculum Committee members should carefully review each syllabus according to the Syllabus Instructions and Requirements document and the rubric established by the committee.
    • The Curriculum Committee will discuss syllabi pending in the database at each meeting (according to the chair’s discretion).
    • The voting members of Curriculum Committee will vote on syllabi according to quorum/voting procedures. Votes can be for the following:

      • Approved

        Approved syllabi will be moved to “approved” status in the database and the old course syllabi will be inactivated within 2 business days.

      • Returned

        Returned syllabi will be returned to syllabi authors within 2 business days for revision. Division representatives should work with syllabi authors on revisions.

      • Approved pending changes

        Syllabi may be approved pending minor changes. Syllabi authors may be requested to make these changes or members of Curriculum Committee may make the changes.
    • Division representatives should know status of syllabi and inform the appropriate database manager when syllabi can be moved to approved status.
    • Division representatives should inform syllabi authors within two business days of the Curriculum Committees decision with any required or recommended changes as well as the next steps.
    • Syllabi updates go into effect the semester following approval, unless otherwise approved.

  9. Syllabi Definitions and Rubric

    The Syllabus Instructions and Requirements document should be consulted during review and creation of syllabi. All courses will be reviewed according to the following rubric.

    • Purpose and Place in Overall Curriculum: What is the purpose or intent of the proposed course? How does the course enhance the quality of the existing career curriculum or new program? In the case of a transfer course, how does the course fit into the General Education curriculum? How will the course help achieve the goals of the overall program?
    • Impact on Program Hours: Is the course an elective or is it a required course? What impact will the addition of this course have on the total number of hours in the approved program?
    • Impact on Other Programs: Will the proposed changes in credit hours have an impact on any other program in the college? If so, has that program’s dean, department chair, or faculty been advised or consulted?
    • Duplication: How does the new course compare with similar courses already offered within the College? If so, how will this course avoid unnecessary duplication? If so, has the dean, department chair or faculty of the similar course been advised or consulted?
    • Impact on Existing Course Offerings: Will the proposed course compete for enrollments with other existing courses?
    • Target Population: What sector of the student population will benefit from this course? What is the anticipated demand for the course?
    • Catalog Description: Is the catalog description clear, mechanically correct, and appropriate for both a student and general audience?
    • Transferability: Does the course articulate well with similar courses at transfer institutions? Does it parallel similar courses at sister institutions?
    • Prerequisites and Co-requisites: What, if any, are the prerequisites and co-requisites for the course? Are the prerequisites and co-requisites stated appropriately? Are they feasible?
    • Course Content: Does the course content give a basic overview of the course? Is this overview general enough for any instructor to teach the courses?
    • Credit Hours: How is the course structured in lecture/lab credit hours? Is this the best combination of instructional formats to meet desired learning outcomes bearing in mind cost to student and the institution? Are the credit hours appropriate for the course content and rigor? Does the number of credit hours correspond to state and college mandated requirements?
    • A credit hour is defined in the Snow College academic catalog.
    • Procedures for assigning credit hours to courses and programs are found in the State of Utah education policies R401.
    • The Constitution of the Curriculum Committee ensures consistency across programs and courses.
    • Repeatability: Is the course repeatable? If so is that properly indicated?
    • Class Size: Is the class size appropriate for the course and program? Are the ideal and maximum numbers appropriate?
    • Course Offering: When will the course be offered? How often will it be offered? What are the anticipated number of sections? What are the anticipated modes of delivery (on campus, online, IVC)? Do we have the appropriate resources to teach the course as indicated?
    • GE Outcomes (GE courses only): Are outcomes 1, 2, and 6 included? What other outcomes are indicated? Are they appropriate for the course and program? Are the outcomes clear, mechanically correct? Do they connect to assessment measures?
    • GE Knowledge Area Outcomes (GE courses only): Are the correct outcomes associated with each area? Are they clear, mechanically correct? Do they connect to assessment measures?
    • Student Learning Outcomes: Are the outcomes clear and mechanically correct? Do they appropriately reflect course content? Do they connect to assessment measures?
    • Pedagogy Statement: Does the statement appropriately explain how the course will be taught? Are methods in alignment with best practices in the discipline? Are methods general enough to include any teachers’ approach?
    • Key Performance Indicators: Do KPIs align with assessment measures in outcomes? Do the percentages appropriately add up?
    • Instructional Mediums: Are the appropriate instructional mediums selected? Does the college have the resources to teach the course using the selected mediums?
    • Texts and Supplies: Are sample texts indicated?
    • Resource Statements: Do the statements indicate how new courses will be supported by the department, division, college, etc.? Do they indicate that resources are still in place for review courses? Do the statements indicate how new courses will impact the teaching of GE courses within a division or department?

 

Special Projects

Credit through a special project may be earned if there is a demonstrated need that cannot be met through enrollment in a regularly scheduled course. Credit for a special project normally should be one or two credit hours, depending on the work completed. Projects must be approved by the Curriculum Committee.

  • The student, in consultation with the instructor, completes and signs the form.
  • The instructor completes the form.
  • The respective division dean must approve the contract and keep a copy of the approved form.
  • The contract goes to the Curriculum Committee Division Representative for projects of one credit hour and to the Curriculum Committee for projects of two or more credit hours for final approval.
  • After the contract is approved, the student may register for the project.
  • When the requirements have been completed and evaluated, the instructor should submit a grade online, or on a Grade Change Card.

 

Programs

R401 governs procedures for creating and approving programs.

New Certificate Procedures

  1. The approved template and rubric will be used for all certificates.
  2. New certificates must be approved by the Chief Academic Officer office before being sent to the Curriculum Committee for approval.
  3. The committee will review and give feedback on all new proposals. Individuals who propose new certificates or revise existing ones may attend committee meetings to discuss new certificates or revisions.
  4. The committee may ask for further clarification on any certificate or revision.
  5. Once the Curriculum Committee approves the certificate, the proposal will be sent to the Budget Committee for final budget and resource approval.
  6. The Board of Trustees is then informed about new certificates.

Revisions to Existing Certificates

  1. Revisions to existing certificates should be presented to the committee in a clear manner, preferably in writing before the meeting, and program managers are welcome to attend meetings to discuss changes. The committee will consider the following when reviewing revisions:
    • Do the changes benefit students?
    • Do the changes use resources in appropriate and beneficial ways?
    • Do the changes benefit the college?
    • Do the changes impact other programs or course offerings?

Associate’s and Bachelor’s Degrees Procedures

  1. When revising or creating degree programs, authors should follow the requirements outlined in R401.
  2. Authors may ask for and receive feedback from the committee before submitting a final proposal.
  3. All program changes go into effect the next academic year, except in exceptional situations.
  4. Program changes should be submitted to the committee by the end of January.

 

Audits and Assessment

  1. Routine audits are performed ensuring individual courses meet master syllabi requirements for credit hours each semester. Routine audits are also performed for programs to ensure programs meet published guidelines (see course catalogues). These happen at the department and division level.
  2. Individual course syllabi are also routinely assessed by the Curriculum Committee to ensure they follow standards set forth in approved master course syllabi.
  3. Curriculum Committee Assessment of Course Syllabi: Each year, the Curriculum Committee indicates a subset of courses syllabi to review for consistency with master course syllabi. Over the course of a five-year period, sample syllabi from every discipline and kind of course are reviewed.
  4. Individual programs and courses are assessed regularly each year during the college-mandated assessment period. Departments and divisions determine assessment priorities.
  5. Program changes must be approved by Curriculum Committee before they can be updated in the current catalog.

 

Appeals from Subcommittees

  1. Procedures for appeals from subcommittees are laid out in the Faculty Senate bylaws.
  2. Appeals from Academic Standards Committee

    Additional Procedures for appeals from the Academic Standards Committee are laid out in the bylaws for the Academic Standards Committee.

    • The chair determines how appeals will be heard by the committee (whether through email vote, in a regular meeting, or in a special meeting). Meetings will usually be closed meetings.
    • The Curriculum Committee chair will work with the chair of the Academic Standards Committee to obtain needed documents.
    • The Curriculum Committee chair will invite any relevant individuals to present the appeal to the committee.
    • Once the committee has heard the appeal and discussed the situation, a member may motion a decision, which will carry with a simple majority.
    • A secretary will notify the individual appealing of the committee’s decision.
    • Individuals may appeal Curriculum Committee decisions of academic standards appeals to the Chief Academic Officer.

 

Other Policies

  1. Closed Sessions: In the case of discussion of sensitive information, such as an appeal from the Academic Standards Committee, Curriculum Committee may move into a closed session. A committee member should motion for the meeting to transition into closed session, and the vote should carry. Those in attendance who are not members of the committee will be invited to leave. Detailed minutes will not be kept.

 

Approved: 2/4/2019
Revised: 4/4/2019