Programs Approved by Faculty and Administration

As stated in Section 5.8.9.1 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual, all course and curricular development and changes are initiated and approved at the departmental level by qualified faculty in each discipline [1]. Departments then submit the requests to college deans for review and approval. Once approved, requests are submitted to the University's Courses and Curricula Committee or Graduate Council for review and approval, as per the Committee's guidelines [2]. All voting members of the Courses and Curricula Committee and Graduate Council are full-time teaching faculty, as indicated in the University's Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 1.14.2.2 [3]:

Evidence of faculty approval is provided in Minutes from Courses and Curricula [4] meetings and Faculty Senate [5] meetings. The proposal is then forwarded to appropriate administrators for final approval. The President and Board of Regents must also approve new programs. Specific policies and procedures for curricular development or modification and creation of programs are stated in Nicholls' Policy and Procedure Manual, Sections 5.8.9.1 and 5.8.9.2 [6], as follows:

5.8.9.1. Curriculum Development

Faculty have the primary responsibility for curriculum, including course additions, deletions, or modifications, and program additions or modifications. These additions and modifications may involve Board of Regents approval. Faculty should be aware of the complete process from the department level to the Board of Regents (Section 5.2.2). Knowledge of time limitations is crucial for a successful conclusion to the process.

In most cases, a curriculum proposal is developed intra-departmentally. The college curriculum committees review the proposal and either approve it by sending it on to the Dean or sending it back to the Head with suggested modifications. The Dean may return the proposal to the committee for further modification or send it on to the Courses and Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Council as required.

After review by the Graduate Council or appropriate committee, the proposal may be returned to the appropriate Dean for modification. The committees may also schedule hearings with specific Department Heads or faculty proposing changes in order to obtain further information. Upon approval by the committee, a recommendation is forwarded to the Faculty Senate.

The Senate votes on the proposal and forwards its recommendation to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs makes final disposition of the proposal and notifies the Senate of the recommendation. More detailed information of the responsibilities in the routing process for curriculum changes is found in the Courses and Curriculum Procedures document.

5.8.9.2. Modifications to or Creation of Degree Programs

The Board of Regents for the State of Louisiana has the authority to grant Program and Curriculum Changes for Louisiana Colleges and Universities. Guidelines for "requests to offer a new program" and "requests to revise or eliminate an existing program and/or administrative unit" were modified in February 1990 in a memorandum sent to all system and campus Vice-Presidents and Vice-Chancellors for Academic Affairs.

The first step in the method for proposing these changes is the "Letter of Intent." It is important for all faculty members to realize that

•	the letters of intent must contain specific information about descriptions of proposed programs, needs for proposed programs, estimated student enrollment for proposed programs, faculty criteria for proposed programs, library and special resource needs for proposed programs, facility and equipment needs for proposed programs, administration for proposed programs, and costs for proposed programs;
•	the letters of intent must be filed 12 months in advance of proposals for baccalaureate, master's, specialist, and doctoral programs, and 90 days in advance for certificate and associate programs. (Only under unusual circumstances will the Board of Regents waive these time requirements.)
•	the letters of intent are valid for three years after the date of submittal to the Board of Regents.

Because faculty comprise the voting membership of Nicholls' Courses and Curricula Committee and Graduate Council, because all educational programs must be approved by one or both of these committees before being offered for academic credit, and because this committee requires and subsequently evaluates all program and learning outcomes as part of a regular review process, the institution is clearly in compliance with this standard.

Establish and Evaluate Program and Learning Outcomes

Nicholls demonstrates that it establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes through its curricular approval process. The evaluation is ongoing, as reflected in the annual planning process. Academic programs are also assessed at the college and/or departmental levels in numerous other ways:

Establish Program and Learning Outcomes
The approval process for creation of new courses requires the submission of sample syllabi (scroll to Form A, Item 18) [7]. The Courses and Curricula Committee and/or Graduate Council reviews syllabi of proposed courses as part of the approval process. The University's Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 2.7.1.1.3.i, also states that all syllabi must contain student Outcome Objectives [8].

Section 2.7.1.1.3. Absence and Class-related Duties

i. Course Syllabi. On the first day of class, faculty are required to have available course syllabi for all students in each course being taught. These syllabi must then be filed with the department. The following information is required in all syllabi:

•	The description exactly as it appears in the current Bulletin
•	Instructor's name (rank and title are optional)
•	Instructor's office location and telephone number
•	Required textbook(s), materials, supplies (Provide detailed bibliographic information for texts and indicate if copies are on reserve in the library.)
•	Student Outcome Objectives** and requirements of the course
•	Tentative outline of course content.
•	Methods of evaluation
•	Required supplementary readings.
•	" A statement that indicates compliance with the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act: "If you have a documented disability that requires assistance, you will need to register with the Office of Disability Services for coordination of your academic accommodations. The Office of Disability Services is located in Peltier Hall, Room 100 A. The phone number is (985) 448-4430 (TDD 449-7002)."

**Student Outcome Objectives are learning objectives that can be measured. (For example, "Upon completion of this course, students will be able to (1) distinguish...(2) demonstrate...(3) apply...(4) develop...(5) solve...(6) create..."). See guidelines for writing Student Learning Outcomes on Assessment and Institutional Research Web Page and on M Drive.

Most University syllabi [9], including sample syllabi from allied health [9A], English [9B], marketing [9C], and speech [9D] courses, are electronically available.

Evaluate Program and Learning Outcomes
All departments must determine specific Student Learning Outcome Objectives for all programs and are required to employ a formal method of evaluating the achievement of those outcomes. Part 2 of the Annual Plan documents Student Learning Outcome Objectives and Assessment for each academic program. Student Learning Outcomes results and use of results as described in Part 2 of the 2003 and 2004 Annual Plans are electronically available [10].

Other Program Assessments

Academic Program Reviews
Academic Program Review is one method used to identify and assess educational program outcomes. In 1992, a five-year cycle [11] for academic program review was established. To begin, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs requests heads of academic departments to complete an intensive evaluation of each major program of study [12] via the Program Review Format [13] (Programs with recently approved accreditations may submit the accreditation folio in lieu of completing the prescribed format.) The Program Review Format requires department heads to provide answers to questions related to program objectives (Item 1.2), Deans are assigned as primary and secondary readers and conduct intensive evaluations of the reviews [14]. Question number six of the evaluations, for example, asks Deans to review "Student Outcomes Objectives and how they are assessed." Deans also interview department heads and then compile and report their findings to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President submits a report, which may include questions, to department heads. Finally, department heads submit follow-up reports on improvements to be made (Form A) to the Vice President. Program reviews have become an integral part of the planning and assessment process since their inception over 10 years ago. Academic Program Reviews and Form A samples are electronically available [15].

In a spirit of continuous improvement, the program review format was recently reconsidered by deans on the Academic Council. This effort changed the original emphasis on determining the viability of academic programs to an increased emphasis on assessment outcomes and use of assessment results in order to improve programs. The revised format, which is effective for reviews beginning in spring 2006, is electronically available [16].

Advisory Boards
Many departments meet at least annually with advisory boards made up of alumni, specialists in the field, and community representatives. These advisory boards often offer advice and suggestions for enhancing academic programs. (Click for sample advisory board minutes of meetings [21].)

National Accreditations and Unique Program Level Processes
Program objectives are also evaluated via national accreditations (see Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 [17] or NSU Accreditations Summary Table [18]) and/or processes developed at the departmental and/or college level. Examples follow:

Biological Sciences
The Department of Biological Sciences is not represented by an accrediting agency. To ensure that the program maintains the highest standards, the department's faculty annually meets with the undergraduate Advisory Board made up of alumni, specialists in the field, and community representatives. Experts in each of the concentration areas participate in the annual meeting. A list of Advisory Board members can be found in the Department of Biological Sciences' Annual Plan.

After an annual review of the current curricula and recent accomplishments by the department at both undergraduate and graduate levels, the Advisory Board makes recommendations for improvement. The graduate program in Marine and Environmental Biology has a separate Advisory Board made up of alumni, specialists in the field, and community representatives. A list of the Graduate Advisory Board can be found in the department's Annual Plan.

Nursing
The National League of Nursing's Accrediting Commission (NLNAC) nationally accredits both of the educational programs in the Department of Nursing—the Associate of Science in Nursing (A.S.N.) Program and the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (B.S.N.) programs. Using the NLNAC accreditation standards, the Department of Nursing has developed a separate Systematic Plan for Program Evaluation (SPPE) for the A.S.N. and the B.S.N. programs [19]. For each program, the SPPE is completed once a year by the Committee for Evaluation and Research for each program.

NLNAC has seven standards for accreditation: mission and governance, faculty, students, curriculum and instruction, resources, integrity, and educational effectiveness. For each standard, each nursing program (A.S.N. and B.S.N.) in its respective SPPE has separately developed expected levels of achievement (ELAs) that are essentially measurable behavioral outcomes. Each standard has between 6 to 24 ELAs. For each ELA, the following are reported: results of data collection; analysis of data; actual level of achievement (met or not met); and results for program development, maintenance, or revision.

For example, learning outcomes are addressed in Standard VII (Educational Effectiveness) for the B.S.N. program's SPPE. Of the 23 ELAs for Standard VII, number 15 addresses "therapeutic intervention" as a critical learning outcome. The expectation is that "Graduating seniors' class average on nationally standardized test for pre-NCLEX-RN (RN Assessment) test in Educational Resources' Total Testing Plan, as a measure of therapeutic intervention, exceeds the national minimal passing score." In both fall 2002 and spring 2003, the national minimal passing score was 46; Nicholls' students scored 54 and 56, respectively. Hence, this expectation was met, and the result for program development was to "continue to monitor every semester" [20].