Going Online? What you need to know. – Expedited Phase 2 Review Process

Guidelines for Program Format Conversions (Expedited Phase 2 Review Process)

This process applies to programs and certificates converting from a face-to-face to an online/hybrid delivery format where no significant curricular changes accompany that conversion.

Cover Letter.

The cover letter should:

  • Indicate that the submission is intended to officially initiate the Committee’s review;
  • Be signed by the person initiating the process and identify the person or persons from whom the Committee may seek additional information during the review; and
  • Be limited to those elements. (All descriptive material should be included in Part I of the submission and in responses to questions posed in Part II.)

Part I.

Please provide a statement describing the format conversion and identifying expected resource costs, expected benefits, and expected impacts on academic programs, including:

  • Justification or rationale for the proposed change and an assessment of its anticipated net effect on the quality and scope of the University’s academic programs, including instruction, research, and service;
  • Any details about the financial arrangements that have been discussed; and
  • A brief presentation of any other material the proposer wishes the Committee to consider in its deliberations. (optional)

The statement should be no longer than one single-spaced page.

Part II.

Please provide concise responses to the following questions (responses should be numbered to correspond with the questions):

  1. Describe the current organizational structure and functional responsibilities of the unit or units that will be affected by the format conversion. The description should identify the entities to which the unit or units currently report and briefly characterize the units’ mission in regard to research, instruction, and service.
  2. Identify the principal arguments that have surfaced to date both for and against the format conversion. Avoid general statements, and list concrete examples of specific benefits and costs.
  3. Provide an overview of the discussions that have occurred to date relating to the proposed change(s). Over what time period have these discussions taken place? Have faculty been involved in these discussions? All faculty or a subset of faculty? Which administrators have been involved in these discussions? Who initiated these discussions?
  4. Identify faculty and staff who will be affected by the proposed change(s).
  5. Indicate whether potentially affected parties have been systematically polled (by ballot straw vote, for example) on their positions relative to the proposed changes. If so, describe the results of any polling.

Part III:

Steps of the process.

  1. PCRRC:  Proposals for program format conversions must be submitted to the PCRRC of the Faculty Senate. Primary concerns of the PCRRC include documentation of faculty input within the affected unit, posting of the proposal on the PCRRC website, and notification of faculty with the opportunity to respond. The PCRRC can recommend modifications to the proposal, recommend that the proposal proceed without a full Faculty Senate vote, or require the full Senate process.
  2. Provost/President
  3. Chancellor