This policy defines the parameters by which course subject listings are established, renamed, reorganized, and/or discontinued. The purpose of this policy is to ensure disciplinary and curricular consistency across the university’s Course Subject Listings.

Each course subject listing is associated with an academic unit that is responsible for the subject listing.

A proposal to establish, rename, restructure, and/or discontinue a course subject listing must be reviewed and approved by the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) and subsequently presented to the University Academic Planning Council (UAPC) for consent.

Establishing a Course Subject Listing

A proposal for a new course subject listing must be submitted via Lumen Structures. The proposal must identify the academic unit for the course subject listing and must include the following:

• How/why the proposed course subject listing is necessary to support course enrollment by students.
• A list of the courses anticipated to be included in the new course subject listing.
• Most courses are to be uniquely offered under the new course subject listing. Some cross-listed courses can be included when applicable. An explanation as to how the courses to be included in the course subject listing represent a distinct group of courses not duplicated in an existing course subject listing.
• Evidence that the academic unit is stable with a long-term academic and resource foundation.
• Evidence of faculty and staff expertise, continuity, and availability required to maintain a course subject listing.
  • This includes identification of a curricular representative who is trained and responsible for maintaining the course subject listing and coordinating/managing the following:
    • Course details (e.g., requisites) and the schedule of classes, and
    • Course information for the Course Search and Enroll app,
    • Communication to students and advisors, and
    • Course enrollment, and/or
    • Classroom scheduling.
• Evidence that department faculty will be involved in course instruction.

If the proposed course subject listing overlaps with established course subject listings, e.g., a related field of study or similar curricular content, a similar name, etc., the proposal must be reviewed by the academic division and academic unit associated with the existing listing(s), and documentation of comment, support, or concurrence must be included in the proposal.

Renaming, Reorganizing, or Discontinuing a Course Subject Listing

A proposal to rename, reorganize, or discontinue a course subject listing must be submitted via Lumen Structures. If approved, the proposal will become effective in a future summer term. The proposal must include the following:

• The rationale for the action, including the impact on students.
• A timeline for the action, including in which summer term it will become effective.
• Details on any fiscal considerations and/or impacts on faculty and staff resources.
• Evidence of consultation with units with overlapping interests (see above).
• Necessary approvals from the academic division and academic unit.

Cross-Listed Courses

A cross-listed course is shared by multiple course subject listings. There is no requirement that a course be cross-listed, even when it meets the criteria for cross-listing. Cross-listing is generally reserved for courses that are taught with an inter-or multi-disciplinary framework and that appropriately belong in multiple subject listings. There may be occasions when cross-listing courses serve the broader goals of departments/programs, and since the responsibility for managing their Course Subject listings rests on these units, they bear responsibility for determining the proper use of cross-listing.

The following conditions are expected to be met for cross-listed courses:

1. All course information related to the cross-listed courses must be identical, including course number, title, credits , requisites, and attributes.
2. Cross-listed courses are owned equally by each cross-listed subject. One subject is not a “primary” owner.
3. Faculty associated with a department owning the Course Subject Listing in the cross-listing teach the course.
4. Any of the departments participating in the cross-listing has the potential to offer the course independently.
5. The subject matter must be appropriate and relevant to fields represented by the participating departments.

Connections between programs and interests must be sufficient for cross-listing courses across subject listings. The cross-listing of courses increases the complexity of scheduling classes and adds to staff workload. This must be taken into consideration prior to the submission of a proposal for cross-listing.

Lumen and Guide KB-86193 Lumen Structures: Forms and Actions

This policy defines the parameters for use of course numbers to ensure consistency across the university.

Course numbers:

• Reflect the level of the course;
• Assist advisors and students in course planning, selection, and registration;
• Appear in the Guide;
• Appear on student transcripts;
• Factor into degree audits;
• Are used in reports.

It is imperative academic units follow the course numbering rubric to ensure consistency across the university.

1. Ranges
   1. Course numbers below 100 do not carry degree credit.
   2. Courses numbered 100-299 may be taken for credit only by undergraduates.
   3. Courses numbered 300-699 may be taken for credit by undergraduate and graduate or professional students.
   4. Courses numbered 700-999 are open only to graduate and professional students.
2. Specific Course Numbers
   1. Directed/Independent Study
      1. Course numbers ending in 98 or 99 (e.g., 198 or 699) are reserved for individual instruction (i.e., directed study, independent study) and are not to be used for group instruction.
      2. Courses ending in 98 (e.g., 198 or 698) are offered on a credit/no credit basis.
      3. Courses ending in 99 are graded on the A-F grade scale.
3. Thesis
   1. Course numbers 681 and 682 are reserved for the two-semester undergraduate honors thesis sequence.
      1. Upon completion of the first course in the sequence, a placeholder grade is entered indicating whether the student is making appropriate progress. At the completion of the second course, an appropriate grade (A-F) is entered for the second course in the sequence, which automatically updates the first course in the sequence.
   2. Course numbers 691 and 692 are reserved for the two-semester undergraduate (non-honors) thesis sequence.
      1. Upon completion of the first course in the sequence, a placeholder grade is entered indicating whether the student is making appropriate progress. At the completion of the second course, an appropriate grade (A-F) is entered for the second course in the sequence, which automatically updates the first course in the sequence.
   3. Course number 680 is reserved for the one-semester honors thesis.
   4. Course number 690 is reserved for the one-semester (non-honors) thesis.
   5. Courses numbered 790, 890, 990 are generally used for thesis and dissertation writing.
      1. A grade of P (Progress) is entered each semester indicating whether the student is making appropriate progress until the faculty member assigns a grade of S (Satisfactory) or U (Unsatisfactory) and all previously assigned P grades will convert to the S or U. Read the policy UW-1235 Progress (P) Grades.
4. Reuse of a Course Number
   1. A course number may be reused, provided the previous course with that subject/number combination is inactive and there has been no enrollment in the course for at least eight years.
   2. If the course that previously used the number remains active but has not had any student enrollment (including transfer credit or study abroad equivalency credit) for at least eight years, a course deactivation proposal must be submitted via Lumen Courses prior to starting a new course proposal that uses the same course number.
   3. The Guide displays active courses for each subject, and when each course was last taught. Inactive courses do not appear.
   4. The Lumen Course Proposal Form will only allow eligible course numbers to be entered and saved on a course proposal.

Guide

Lumen

This policy defines the parameters by which course subject listings are established, renamed, reorganized, and/or discontinued. The purpose of this policy is to ensure disciplinary and curricular consistency across the university’s Course Subject Listings.

Each course subject listing is associated with an academic unit that is responsible for the subject listing.

A proposal to establish, rename, restructure, and/or discontinue a course subject listing must be reviewed and approved by the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) and subsequently presented to the University Academic Planning Council (UAPC) for consent.

Establishing a Course Subject Listing

A proposal for a new course subject listing must be submitted via Lumen Structures. The proposal must identify the academic unit for the course subject listing and must include the following:

• How/why the proposed course subject listing is necessary to support course enrollment by students.
• A list of the courses anticipated to be included in the new course subject listing.
• Most courses are to be uniquely offered under the new course subject listing. Some cross-listed courses can be included when applicable. An explanation as to how the courses to be included in the course subject listing represent a distinct group of courses not duplicated in an existing course subject listing.
• Evidence that the academic unit is stable with a long-term academic and resource foundation.
• Evidence of faculty and staff expertise, continuity, and availability required to maintain a course subject listing.
  • This includes identification of a curricular representative who is trained and responsible for maintaining the course subject listing and coordinating/managing the following:
    • Course details (e.g., requisites) and the schedule of classes, and
    • Course information for the Course Search and Enroll app,
    • Communication to students and advisors, and
    • Course enrollment, and/or
    • Classroom scheduling.
• Evidence that department faculty will be involved in course instruction.

If the proposed course subject listing overlaps with established course subject listings, e.g., a related field of study or similar curricular content, a similar name, etc., the proposal must be reviewed by the academic division and academic unit associated with the existing listing(s), and documentation of comment, support, or concurrence must be included in the proposal.

Renaming, Reorganizing, or Discontinuing a Course Subject Listing

A proposal to rename, reorganize, or discontinue a course subject listing must be submitted via Lumen Structures. If approved, the proposal will become effective in a future summer term. The proposal must include the following:

• The rationale for the action, including the impact on students.
• A timeline for the action, including in which summer term it will become effective.
• Details on any fiscal considerations and/or impacts on faculty and staff resources.
• Evidence of consultation with units with overlapping interests (see above).
• Necessary approvals from the academic division and academic unit.

Cross-Listed Courses

A cross-listed course is shared by multiple course subject listings. There is no requirement that a course be cross-listed, even when it meets the criteria for cross-listing. Cross-listing is generally reserved for courses that are taught with an inter-or multi-disciplinary framework and that appropriately belong in multiple subject listings. There may be occasions when cross-listing courses serve the broader goals of departments/programs, and since the responsibility for managing their Course Subject listings rests on these units, they bear responsibility for determining the proper use of cross-listing.

The following conditions are expected to be met for cross-listed courses:

1. All course information related to the cross-listed courses must be identical, including course number, title, credits , requisites, and attributes.
2. Cross-listed courses are owned equally by each cross-listed subject. One subject is not a “primary” owner.
3. Faculty associated with a department owning the Course Subject Listing in the cross-listing teach the course.
4. Any of the departments participating in the cross-listing has the potential to offer the course independently.
5. The subject matter must be appropriate and relevant to fields represented by the participating departments.

Connections between programs and interests must be sufficient for cross-listing courses across subject listings. The cross-listing of courses increases the complexity of scheduling classes and adds to staff workload. This must be taken into consideration prior to the submission of a proposal for cross-listing.

Lumen and Guide KB-86193 Lumen Structures: Forms and Actions

The resolution below was approved by the Faculty Senate at its meeting of 15 January 1973. Section 1 of the grading policy was adopted by the Faculty Senate at its meeting of 5 May 1980, to be effective in the first semester of the 1980-81 academic year.

The present grading system (A-F) will be retained with the following exceptions:

1. Undergraduate students may repeat any course once without special permission of the dean, with all grades (A through F) and their associated gradepoints included in the gradepoint average, but with credits counted only once for any other purpose.
2. The academic rationale for certain courses may most appropriately be served by grading the entire course outside the usual grading system. The grades for these specially approved courses shall be CR for credit and N for no credit. These grades will carry no grade points. Approval for such courses shall be obtained through the appropriate divisional executive committee. The divisional committee is to take into account the possible effects of such action on other departments and majors. All approvals must be obtained prior to the publishing of the Timetable for the initial semester in which the course is to be offered. Subsequent offerings of the course do not require further authorization. All future Timetables and all subsequent catalogs must indicate the special grading rules in effect for such courses. The CR/N courses are independent of the student-option pass/fail system.
3. Intermediate grades of AB and BC shall be added between A and B and between B and C, respectively.
4. For courses taken under the pass-fail option, the grade of S shall be recorded by the registrar in place of instructors’ grades of A, AB, B, BC, or C.

UW–Madison Faculty Senate Minutes – 15 January 1977 (For access to document see policy contact above) 

UW–Madison Faculty Senate Minutes – 5 May 1980 (For access to document see policy contact above) 

This policy defines the parameters for use of the pass/fail grading option for degree-seeking undergraduate students.

1. Pass/Fail Grading Option

   This policy only applies to degree-seeking students during their undergraduate careers. It only applies to courses that use the default A-F grading scale and that allow students to choose to take a course on a pass/fail basis.

   Instructors are not formally notified when a student elects to take a course on the pass/fail grade basis. At the end of the course, the instructor will enter the final letter grade earned by the student on their grade roster, and the Office of the Registrar will convert the letter grade for a pass/fail student accordingly. A passing grade of S (Satisfactory) will be recorded when a letter grade of A through C is earned and a failing grade of U (Unsatisfactory) will be recorded when a letter grade of D or F is earned. In addition to the S or U grade, the student transcript includes the symbol # for courses taken on a pass/fail basis.

   S (Satisfactory) and U (Unsatisfactory) grades are not used in computing the student’s grade-point average, but the grade of U may impact Satisfactory Academic Progress.

2. Student Eligibility

   Students must be in good academic standing with their school/college to be eligible for the pass/fail grading option.

   Undergraduates may elect to take one non-required course on a pass/fail basis each fall and spring semester and/or each summer term for a maximum of 16 credits total during their undergraduate careers.

   The schools/colleges and/or departments may exclude certain courses from the pass/fail grading option and may impose additional restrictions on eligibility. Students are encouraged to consult with an advisor before requesting the pass/fail grading option to fully understand the implications.

3. Course Eligibility

   Required courses cannot be taken on a pass/fail basis. Ultimately students are responsible for ensuring courses taken with the pass/fail grading basis are considered free electives in their degree programs. Students are strongly encouraged to consult with an academic advisor before taking a course on a pass/fail grading basis. Required courses that are mistakenly taken on the pass/fail grading basis will not count for non-elective requirements even if they would normally count toward such requirements.

4. School or College Responsibilities

   Each school or college is responsible for clearly communicating the definitions of “good academic standing” and “free elective” to their students.

   The office responsible for academic policy exceptions in each school or college is authorized to make exceptions to the pass/fail grading policy.

   For study abroad programs operated by the College of Engineering, courses taken abroad toward an engineering major will be posted as pass/fail. This occurs automatically and is not a student option; this practice is not covered or impacted by this policy.

Guide

Process for Requesting the Pass/Fail Grading Option

Student Center – Course Change Request

The use of letter grades (A through F) is encouraged and recommended whenever assessment of performance permits. In certain advanced topics, seminar, and research courses, where lack of examinations and other performance criteria make letter grades inapplicable, the use of Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grades is permissible.

For all courses listed as research, the only permissible final grades are Satisfactory (S), Unsatisfactory (U).  Though an Incomplete (I) grade may be assigned, a final grade must be submitted during the following term. If a P grade is assigned, it will remain until the instructor assigns a grade of S or U; all previously assigned P grades are to revert to an S or U upon assignment of the final grade in most cases. These courses will not count in the student’s graduate grade-point average (GPA).

In courses  structured to offer the Satisfactory (S)/Unsatisfactory (U) grading option, a grade of S represents a corresponding letter grade of B or better while a grade of U represents a corresponding letter grade of BC or lower S and U grades are not used in computing  the student’s grade-point average GPA (GPA), but the grade of U may impact the student’s satisfactory progress. S/U grades in courses taken for graduate credit satisfy the Graduate School’s minimum graduate residence, degree, minor, and coursework (50%) credit requirements as well as the minimum or maximum credits required for enrollment each term. Unsatisfactory grades do not satisfy any Graduate School’s minimum credit requirements.  

Tuition is assessed for S/U courses.

This policy defines the parameters for use of the pass/fail grading option for graduate students.

Pass/fail courses do not satisfy any Graduate School credit, coursework, or degree requirements, and do not fulfill minimum or maximum credits each term. Tuition is charged for pass/fail courses. For these reasons, very few graduate students choose the pass/fail option.

Pass/Fail Grading Option

This policy only applies to students during their graduate careers. It only applies to courses that use the default A-F grading scale and that allow students to choose to take a course on a pass/fail basis.

Instructors are not formally notified when a student elects to take a course on the pass/fail grade basis. At the end of the course, the instructor will enter the final letter grade earned by the student on their grade roster, and the Office of the Registrar will convert the letter grade for a pass/fail student accordingly. A passing grade of S (Satisfactory) will be recorded when a letter grade of A through C is earned and a failing grade of U (Unsatisfactory) will be recorded when a letter grade of D or F is earned. In addition to the S or U grade, the student transcript includes the symbol # for courses taken on a pass/fail basis. S and U grades are not used in computing the student’s grade-point average (GPA), but the grade of U may impact the student’s satisfactory progress.

Student Eligibility and Requirements

The following applies to graduate students who elect the pass/fail option: 

• Seminars, independent study, and research may not be taken pass/fail. 
• The pass/fail option is different from the S/U (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) grading option.
• A student must be enrolled in a course to request the pass/fail grade option in My UW Student Center. The deadline to request the pass/fail grade option is available on the Office of the Registrar’s Dates and Deadlines site. Late requests will not be considered.
• Pass/fail courses do not satisfy any Graduate School credit, coursework, or degree requirements, nor do they fulfill minimum credits required for enrollment each term. 
• The enrollment system does count all credits in determining maximum credit load. A Credit Overload Request is required if a student’s total credit load exceeds the maximum limit per term, including courses taken on the pass/fail grading option .
• Tuition is assessed for pass/fail courses.

Drop Deadline

Office of the Registrar

This institution-wide assessment plan provides a framework for student learning assessment at UW–Madison. To ensure the quality of our students’ experience, we engage in ongoing, systematic, and integrated efforts to better understand and improve learning. This is what we mean by student learning assessment. Others may refer to this concept as evidenced-based learning. In any case, student learning assessment is the ongoing process of 1) defining clear, measurable learning goals, 2) ensuring that students engage in sufficient learning experiences to achieve these goals, 3) gathering evidence to determine how well student learning matches our expectations, and 4) using the results to validate or improve learning.

• Overview and Guiding Principles of Student Learning Assessment

  UW–Madison adopts the philosophy that assessment of learning should be an integrated, ongoing component of academic life and the student experience. Student learning takes place both within and outside of the classroom, and UW–Madison promotes assessment of student learning across students’ educational experiences. To this effect, UW–Madison considers the following guiding principles of assessment:

  • Many of the regular activities of academic life are evaluative; when approached from a systematic perspective, they are forms of assessment.
  • Student learning assessment supplements and supports (rather than replaces) curricular, departmental, and other types of ongoing review for program evaluation and improvement.
  • Student learning assessment informs decision-making across several levels: institutional, school/college, division, department/program and course-level, and is especially informative at the course and program level where the learning experience is most immediate.
  • Student learning assessment is ongoing, periodic and iterative; it is used both as a procedure for promoting and maintaining program excellence as well as for answering new questions about students’ educational experiences as those questions arise.
  • Academic student learning assessment activities are faculty driven, and are primarily organized at the program (major, degree, certificate, course) level.
  • Collaboration between academic departments and co-curricular programs is strongly encouraged to identify and align opportunities for assessing student learning across the students’ educational experience.

• Framework for Student Learning Assessment

  At UW–Madison, the Wisconsin Experience serves as an overarching framework across all academic and co-curricular programs for what is expected during a student’s tenure Through the Wisconsin Experience and guided by a set of learning goals referred to as the Essential Learning Outcomes(ELOs),¹ UW–Madison seeks to develop in students the ability to engage in the world, to be creative problem solvers, to integrate empirical analysis and passion, to seek out and create new knowledge and technologies, and to adapt to new situations. The nature of these opportunities and how they are offered—through the integration of student-centered in-class and out-of-class learning experiences which are characterized by active and engaged learning—exemplifies the Wisconsin Experience and what is expected of UW–Madison graduates. (See Table 1. UW–Madison Essential Learning Outcomes.)

  Table 1. UW–Madison Essential Learning Outcomes

  Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World Intellectual and Practical Skills Personal and Social Responsibility Integrative Learning

• Guidance and Oversight

  Faculty, academic departments, and schools/colleges are responsible for developing and implementing the curricula. As such, schools/colleges have appointed committees (such as academic planning and curricular committees) who regularly meet to review the curriculum and consider the results of assessment activities when developing suggestions for program improvement. Establishing departmental and co-curricular assessment plans helps to streamline this process and ensures an evidence-based approach to program quality.

  The Office of the Provost, the University Council on Academic Affairs and Assessment (UCAAA)², and the deans’ offices of the schools and colleges are jointly responsible for student learning assessment. Together these units collaborate to provide oversight and support for assessment activities.

  The Office of the Provost maintains a Student Learning Assessment website intended for those at UW–Madison who lead or engage in assessment activities. The site serves as a resource for individuals to access information on activities around and best practices within the assessment of student learning. The Office of the Provost also provides professional development workshops and consultation to schools and colleges and other units to ensure student learning assessment is supported and an integral component of academic and co-curricular planning.

• Conducting Student Learning Assessment

  Conducting ongoing and systematic evaluation of student learning is an integral component of high-quality academic and co-curricular programs. At UW–Madison, student learning assessment considers what students are expected to learn, where in the curriculum these learning experiences are provided, how it is known that students are learning, and how and when evidence of learning is utilized to validate or make improvements to programs.

  As such, every academic program is expected to have active assessment plans in place, conduct at least one assessment activity each year and report annually to the Office of the Provost, including plans for improvement.

  Specifically, assessment plans should specify at least 3-5 learning goals, identify assessment strategies to determine how students are meeting these learning expectations. Assessment reports include a review and summary of the findings. A Basic Assessment Plan for academic programs is intended as a guide for program faculty and staff who are developing their assessment plans.

  Program faculty and staff are required to utilize at least some direct measures of student learning (embedded questioning, capstone assignments evaluated with rubrics, standardized testing, portfolio reviews, etc.). They may also make use of indirect methods (surveying graduating students, alumni, and employers, etc.) of assessment to document whether or not students meet the stated learning goals. Indirect methods are often seen as easier to use but they must be complemented by direct methods.

• Institutional Assessment

  The assessment of student learning goals at the program level also informs institution-level assessment activities. The Office of the Provost, the Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning, and the Office of Academic Planning and Institutional Research coordinate institution-level activities, including administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Post-Graduation Plan Survey, and other institution-level assessment efforts in accordance with UW System and Board of Regent policies and accreditation standards set forth by the Higher Learning Commission. Institutional efforts also include ongoing and systematic documentation of the Wisconsin Experience and the Essential Learning Outcomes.

• Assessment of General Education Program

  UW-Madison’s General Education assessment reflects a further institution-level assessment of student learning. The general education program was created to ensure that every baccalaureate student at UW–Madison acquires the foundation of an undergraduate education which includes elements for living a productive life, being citizens of the world, appreciating aesthetic values, and engaging in lifelong learning in a changing world.

  UW–Madison’s General Education includes four foundational domains for undergraduate education:

  • Breadth Communication
  • Ethnic Studies
  • Quantitative Reasoning

  These foundational domains provide for breadth across the humanities and arts, social studies, and natural sciences; competence in communication, critical thinking, and analytical skills appropriate for a university-educated person; and investigation of the issues inherent to living in a culturally diverse society. Importantly, UW-Madison’s General Education program aligns with the Wisconsin Experience and Essential Learning Outcomes framework, especially as it relates to providing students with foundational intellectual and practical skills.

  The University General Education Committee (UGEC) oversees the campus-wide undergraduate general education program, management of its requirements and assessment of the general education student learning outcomes, and reports to shared governance through the University Academic Planning Council.

• Graduate-Level Student Learning Goals

  The Graduate School and the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee (GFEC) exercise the authority of the graduate faculty with respect to establishing, reviewing, and modifying graduate degree programs, named options, doctoral minors, graduate/professional certificates, and capstone certificates. As part of its duties, GFEC, in collaboration with the Graduate School leadership, engages in strategic planning discussions. Such discussions include the articulation of broad graduate student learning goals that may be modified and extended by academic programs. In Fall 2014 the Graduate School and the Graduate Executive Committee adopted a set of graduate-level learning goals appropriate to distinguish a graduate education from the undergraduate experience. Assessment of student learning at the graduate level is, ultimately, articulated and carried out in the individual academic programs (UW-Madison Graduate Learning Goals, Appendix B).

• Requirements for Student Learning Assessment

  Program-Level Assessment

  UW–Madison offers a wide range of academic programs at various levels (including bachelor’s, master’s, certificate, professional, and doctoral levels) and within many different areas of specialty. Each degree program is expected to articulate and adopt student learning goals, identify where in the curriculum the learning takes place, and develop assessment plans that align with these learning goals. Further, each academic program is expected to engage in at least one assessment activity each year, report findings, and develop improvement plans as needed. Priority should be given to activities based on direct measures of student learning. (See the UW-Madison 2015-17 Timeline for Program-level Assessment, App. C).

  Table 2. Academic Program Requirements for Student Learning Assessment

  All academic programs (major/degree/co-curricular) will: Articulate student learning goals. Specify where in the curriculum learning takes place. Develop an assessment plan to evaluate whether or not students are meeting expectations of learning. Engage in at least one assessment activity per year; that is, at least one of a program's student learning goals will be evaluated each year. At least some activities must be based in direct measures of learning. Review the results of the annual student learning assessment and utilize findings to inform curricular and co-curricular planning and consider ways that academic programs can more effectively help students learn. Program faculty/staff are required to document assessment activity and annually report to the Office of the Provost.

  Co-Curricular Assessment

  Co-curricular life plays an important role in the student experience at UW–Madison. Students engage in activities that highlight, integrate, and enhance formal academic learning. As such, assessment planning also includes the identification of the range of co-curricular educational experiences through which students demonstrate learning. Thus, co-curricular units and programs set priorities including learning goals, assess these goals, and report on progress annually.

  In addition, academic departments are encouraged to collaborate with co-curricular programs to identify instances in which students demonstrate learning related to the articulated program-level learning goals. Assessment activities designed around these out-of-classroom experiences are included in the program’s annual assessment report. For example, student leadership activities, student governance work, or volunteer opportunities in which students meet intended learning expectations often support academic learning goals.

  Course-Level Assessment

  Faculty are responsible for guiding and monitoring student learning throughout the academic program beginning at the course level. When designing new courses or planning current offerings, faculty establish course goals and course-level student learning outcomes which advance some aspect of the academic program outcomes. All courses offered at UW–Madison must have course syllabi with course objectives and student learning goals clearly articulated. Information about the UW–Madison course approval process can be found on the Academic Planning and Institutional Research website.

  Courses are the unit in which most students directly experience academic programs and are the building blocks of much of the academic experience. In addition to an expectation for academic programs to have learning goals, for-credit courses are also expected to have learning goals. Faculty are required to articulate in their syllabus what they expect students to learn (to know or be able to do) from the course. The learning goals for courses should align with and accumulate to a full set of learning goals for the academic program.

• Academic Planning and Review

  UW–Madison has a long history of conducting regular reviews of academic programs as outlined in the UW–Madison Academic Program Review Guidelines. Academic programs must be reviewed at least once every 10 years under University Academic Planning Council (UAPC) policy and Board of Regents policy. All new academic programs must be reviewed five years after implementation. The purpose of program review is to examine strengths and challenges, to celebrate accomplishments, and to reflect on, and plan for, the future. Program review is a platform for exploring ways to maintain and enhance the academic quality of a range of academic activities. This review should be a natural outcome of an ongoing, program-level assessment process. A plan for assessing student learning and the student experience is required as part of the new program proposal and is expected to be implemented with the initiation of the program. Program review is to be student-focused and, through regular assessment activities, report on issues related to student learning and the student experience. More information about the program review process can be found on the Academic Planning and Institutional Research website.

UW-Madison Selected Resources for Assessment

• UW–Madison Student Learning Assessment website
• College of Letters & Science Example
• General Education at UW–Madison
• Undergraduate Program Profile (trends in degrees, enrollments, time-to-degree, by major)
• Undergraduate Post-Graduation Plans Reports – see the web page for standard reports and how to request program-specific requests
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) – major-specific reports by request to Academic Planning and Institutional Research

¹ ELOs were developed from several national surveys done by the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) with employers, faculty, staff and alumni, asking the question, “What qualities and skills do you want in college graduates?”

² The UCAAA, made up largely of school/college associate deans, meets periodically each academic year to discuss issues related to academic planning, programs, and policies including accreditation, assessment, curricular development, reporting strategies, and other emerging educational trends.

Academic Planning and Institutional Research, Course planning

Academic Planning and Institutional Research, program review

Academic Planning and Institutional Research, undergraduate program profiles

Academic Planning and Institutional Research, undergraduate post-graduation plans reports

Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs)

General education requirements

Student learning assessment, basic assessment plan & cycle

UW-Madison student learning assessment

Wisconsin experience

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

The U.S. Department of Education requires an institution participating in Title IV (federal financial aid) to define a credit hour. Compliance is subject to external review by the delegated authority of the Higher Learning Commission, the university's regional accrediting agency.

1. Application of the Policy

   Course proposals must include sufficient information to aid in the determination of a course’s credit hour value which is established at the time a course is approved through governance and finalized by the University Curriculum Committee. The credit hour designation is maintained across all course offerings and is communicated to students in the course syllabus or equivalent documentation, along with learning outcomes and/or objectives.

   As courses are delivered, departments and their instructors are expected to maintain the appropriate learning activities for students for the determined number of credit hours. All credit-bearing courses at UW–Madison have an instructor of record who meets the minimum qualification standards, who takes responsibility for the learning experience, and who assesses the academic engagement of students, as appropriate for the course format and mode of delivery.

   The 45-hour-per-credit standard conforms to the standard Carnegie unit of the federal definition that sets a credit hour as a course that meets weekly for a 50-minute period over a 15-week semester and expects two hours of student work outside of the classroom for every in-class hour.

   All courses are required to have stated learning outcomes or objectives. The learning outcomes are a feature of the course and are approved when the course is approved. Learning outcomes serve as a basis to determine if the amount of learning is consistent across different formats and modes of instruction. In relation to the credit-hour policy, a statement of what students will learn is necessary if credit is based on a demonstration by the student of learning equivalent to that established as the expected product of a period of study corresponding to a time-based credit-hour assignment.

   The credit-hour standard for the course, and the way that the credit-hour standard is achieved, are communicated to students as part of the course syllabus or equivalent documentation.

   Departments continue to be responsible for the consistent application of the credit hour, credit-hour policy, and for ensuring that a stated credit-hour standard is maintained as courses and instructors and mode of instruction or course formats change.

   All credit-bearing courses are to be scheduled in accordance with UW-Madison’s academic calendar and session dates calendar. The definition of a credit hour accommodates course offerings across fall and spring semesters, summer term and all sessions, and across all formats and modes of instruction including in-person, online, and hybrid. The credit hour policy provides flexibility to serve the university as methods of instruction continue to evolve.

2. Regular and Substantive Student-Instructor Interaction

   1. For purposes of this policy, regular and substantive interaction involves engaging students in teaching, learning, and assessment, consistent with the content under discussion, and it also includes at least two of the following, regardless of modality:

      1. Providing direct instruction;
      2. Assessing or providing feedback on a student's coursework;
      3. Providing information or responding to questions about the content of a course or competency;
      4. Facilitating a group discussion regarding the content of a course or competency; or
      5. Other instructional activities approved by the institution's or program's accrediting agency.

   2. UW-Madison ensures regular interaction between a student and an instructor or instructors by, prior to the student's completion of a course or competency:

      1. Providing the opportunity for substantive interactions with the student on a predictable and scheduled basis commensurate with the length of time and the amount of content in the course or competency; and
      2. Monitoring the student's academic engagement and success and ensuring that an instructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantive interaction with the student when needed on the basis of such monitoring, or upon request by the student.

   The requirement for regular and substantive student-instructor interaction sets a quality standard for UW–Madison instruction and recognizes the centrality of faculty and other qualified instructors in the student learning experience. The requirement for regular and substantive student-instructor interaction is mandated across all course formats and modes of instruction.

   A traditionally formatted three-credit course will typically include three 50-minute class meetings of instructors and students weekly over the 15-week semester. In a blended or flipped course format, substantive interaction may take the form of instructor-guided problem solving or discussion formats. In online/distance courses, the instructor must use technology and progressive disclosure of content to establish regular and substantive interaction. Independent/directed study, research, studio and performing art, internships, clinical placements, other workplace experiences, and other experiential learning must have distinctive levels of regular and substantive instructor interaction consistent with higher education standards.

3. Exclusions

   UW-Madison must be authorized by the Higher Learning Commission and/or the U.S. Department of Education to offer all instructional programs. UW-Madison does not offer certain modalities or programs such as correspondence courses, and competency-based or subscription-based programs.

Courses with Variable Credit

Procedures: Credit Hour

34 C.F.R. § 600.2

Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions

Higher Learning Commission

Higher Learning Commission Credit-Hour Review

Higher Learning Commission Substantive Change: Academic Programs

U.S. Department of Education Regulations

UW System Administrative Policy 165, The Academic Calendar