Reducing New Course Proposal “Revise and Resubmits”

by Edna Pressler

Decorative Image Illustrating Collaboration

Usually, the CII works collaborates with faculty members on the design of new or existing course that have already been approved, but experience working with faculty members on the preparation, submission, and revision of new course proposals made us realize that the process needed to change in order to improve efficiency, productivity, and satisfaction on the part of both course proposers and course approvers.

In the summer of 2019, we therefore followed a five-step strategy for streamlining the new course approval process:

1. Map processes.

We began by issuing invitations to Joint CAP chairs which resulted in productive meetings with Liz Landers and Jason Clemence (separately) to discuss how the process typically moved from start to finish.

1. Analyze the process.

We identified causes of wasted time, effort, and good will. For instance, not all members of CAP had comparable levels of proficiency in evidence-based course design or an agreed-upon standard for evaluation. With frequent rotation of CAP membership, even a high-functioning committee could falter.

Faculty members also had variable levels of proficiency in evidence-based course design and did not have clear criteria from the committee about how their proposal would be evaluated. As a result, many proposals were not initially approved, creating a backlog for the committee (as they would have to review proposals more than once) and for the faculty members, as they would have to re-write the proposal (sometimes multiple times). Both parties (CAP committee members and course proposers) would end up frustrated.

1. Redesign the process.

Kara and I decided that a checklist available to both course proposers and course approvers would potentially improve quality in the initial submissions, as well as transparency and consistency in the evaluation of submissions. We created a checklist with the goal of reducing “revise and resubmits” and increasing “approved as written” or “approved, pending revision.”

1. Implement and communicate change.

We agreed that the checklist would be presented as a resource, not a requirement. Jason Clemence presented it to the full faculty and was well-received. In addition, the CII encouraged faculty members who were creating a new course proposal to refer to the checklist.

1. Review the process.

After the Checklist had been in use for the Fall 2019 semester, Jason calculated the results for CAP SAS/SBC.

Michael Roberts calculated the results for CAP SON/SHS.

As you can see, the CAP Checklist resulted in a 20-30% decrease in “revise and resubmits.” Anecdotally, use of the Checklist also significantly reduced frustration on the part of course proposers and CAP committee members. And delighted the CII team!

The Checklist is included in the New Course Proposal Form, available in Regis Resources. We hope you will use it and find it helpful. A more efficient and effective course approval process leaves everyone more time to design and deliver quality courses.

#CAPChecklist