8.1.1 Adding a Course
(Amended May 18, 2022)
Before offering a new course, the course must be approved by the Academic Council. A request for approval must be made to the Academic Council Course Review Committee at least four months in advance of its intended initial offering. The course must be fully developed and ready for initial offering to students prior to submission for approval. The request must be submitted in the format specified in the course request form available from the Academic Council Recording Secretary.
All requests for adding a new course or changing the NPS Course Catalog description of an existing course must be addressed as shown below:
From: ________________Chair, Academic unit of _________________
Via: Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Via: Academic Council Recording Secretary
To: Chair, Course Review Committee
Copy: Office of Academic Administration, all academic units, Program Officers
If a course is to be cross-listed by multiple academic units, then the approval chain must include the Chairs of all affected academic units.
If any Academic unit objects to a course addition by another academic unit, they should inform the Chair of the academic unit proposing to offer the course and the Chair of the Course Review Committee. This objection must be made prior to the Academic Council meeting at which the course will be addressed.
A valid request must contain all of the following information:
- Catalog description, including the following:
- Course Number, title and credit hours;
- Curricula served (if enrollment is restricted);
- Course description (must highlight DoD/DoN relevance, if any);
- Time period of instruction and hours per week if the course is to be offered in an accelerated mode, i.e., accomplished in any period less than 10 weeks;
- Prerequisites and co-requisites;
- Security Classification, if any;
- Pass/Fail status, if applicable
- Statement of course learning outcomes. Program reviews evaluate how well courses address stated program objectives. This is typically accomplished by considering the match between the course learning outcomes and program learning objectives and how those learning outcomes are assessed. Four questions should be answered:
- What are the program learning objectives? Program learning objectives typically include Educational Skill Requirements set by the curriculum sponsor as well as discipline requirements established by the academic department and external accreditation organizations. That is, they represent topics the students are expected to understand or skills they are expected to be able to exercise, at a relatively high level of generality.
- What are the course learning outcomes? A typical program objective will generate multiple learning outcomes. Course learning outcomes are specific knowledge items, logical activities, or specialized skills each student will be expected to demonstrate as a result of successful completion of the course.
- How do the course learning outcomes align with the program learning objectives? Course learning outcomes should address specific program learning objectives. Multiple program learning objectives may be satisfied by each course. A discussion of which outcomes map to which objectives is required.
- What are the measures for assessing the course learning outcomes? Each learning outcome must be assessed. Measures of performance as well as the use of direct and indirect assessments specific to course learning outcomes must be described. Performance standards and/or rubrics should clearly define how each course learning outcome will be demonstrated by each student taking the course.
- Course Syllabus. The Academic Council will review the course syllabus to evaluate the depth and breadth of topical content of the proposed course, the level of the material covered and expected level of student performance, the amount of time devoted to each topic, the objectives of the course, how those objectives will be measured, and the state of development of the course. The syllabus must be sufficiently complete and explicit for both Academic Council and outside accreditation review. At a minimum, the syllabus must contain:
- A detailed list of modules and/or topics covered during the lectures and the approximate number of lecture hours spent on each topic.
- A detailed list and brief descriptions of experiments, projects, or activities (if laboratory hours are requested for the course.)
- A list of proposed teaching material, e.g., textbooks, outside reading, and/or published handouts.
These items are discussed in more details below. The syllabus must be consistent with the mode of delivery for which approval is requested. Although details are required for initial approval, minor alterations to the syllabus made after Academic Council approval do not require reapproval, unless such alterations lead to a substantive change in the character or content of the course.
Detailed list of modules and/or topics covered during lectures and the number of lecture hours spent on each topic. This list should be organized by the planned order of presentation or occurrence. At a minimum the topical decomposition must be sufficiently detailed that no topic spans more than one week of lectures. A daily breakdown of topics is preferred. Timing, type, and topical coverage of formative and summative assessment activities (homework, quizzes, examinations, presentations, papers, reports, etc.) should be included in this list.
Detailed list and brief descriptions of experiments, projects, or activities. If laboratory hours are requested for a course a list must be provided that identifies all activities (experiments, problem solving sessions, computer-based activities, work on team projects, etc.) to be performed during each weekly laboratory session. This list may be incorporated into the list of lecture topics, if desired. If necessary equipment and facilities are not initially available to support all laboratory sessions, state which experiments will be delayed until later offerings of the course and what alternate activities will be substituted to utilize the laboratory hours requested. Special provisions necessary for non-resident modes of delivery of labs or projects should be discussed in detail.
- Justification. This is to be a free-form discussion on the rationale for adding a new course or changing an existing one. This must include:
- Whether the course is required to satisfy a degree requirement or Educational Skill Requirement, or is an elective. The requirement satisfied should be listed.
- Whether the course is a prerequisite, co-requisite (and the courses to which it is prerequisite/co-requisite) or a terminal course.
- Justification for the level of classification of the course.
- Duplication. A list of courses covering similar topics or significant subsets of the topics must be provided. An analysis of why these courses cannot adequately meet academic objectives must be included. If no existing course at NPS covers a similar set or significant subset of topics, a no-duplication statement must be included. If duplication is likely to be contested by other academic units, then this should be negotiated between the contesting parties before the course is submitted to the Course Review Committee, and evidence of the favorable outcome of such negotiation should be part of the submission package.
- Resources. A statement indicating whether a new or revised course will require a non-negligible increase in resources either within or outside of the academic unit, such as a new instructor, new laboratory space, or new laboratory equipment, should be attached.
- Schedule. Indicate the proposed schedule for the course (e.g. Every Spring, starting in 2014).