REPORT OF THE

GENERAL EDUCATION TASKFORCE ON TRANSFER EQUIVALENCY

MARCH 2003

Members: Wilson Baldridge (French), Harold Edwards (Education), Silvia Herzog (Music), David McDonald (Biology), Peer H. Moore-Jansen (chair) (Anthropology).

I. INTRODUCTION

The General Education Taskforce on Transfer Equivalency is one of four taskforces appointed faculty senate president Kirk Lancaster to address concerns about the General Education Program at Wichita State University as brought forth in the 2002 report of the Ad hoc General Education Committee. The specific charge of the Transfer Equivalency Taskforce is 1) to review the WSU transfer credit policy with specific reference to standardization, application, and regular review of course equivalency evaluations of courses offered at other institutions, and 2) to address the issue of how to achieve greater consistency in WSU course numbering and sequencing across the curriculum.

The committee met during the fall semester to discuss current policy and issues of implementation and oversight relevant to the establishment of course transfer equivalency at WSU. The committee consulted with the Registrar’s office and a representative of the university Advising Council for information about the current transfer equivalency policy and to learn about specific issues associated with application and implementation of said protocol.

II. CURRENT PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATING TRANSFER EQUIVALENCY

            The information about the current protocol for evaluating transfer equivalency is obtained from the Registrar’s Office and is reported below.

            When a new transfer equivalency request is received by the Registrar’s Office a copy of the course description or the syllabus is forwarded to the appropriate department for evaluation. Courses from Kansas Colleges may be be initiated either by the colleges submitting course syllabi to the WSU Registrar for evaluation or by the Registrar’s Office identifying new courses in the respectve catalogs of Kansas colleges.

The WSU department chair or a person appointed within the department to complete this task reviews the course materials and completes the evaluation form at which time the form is returned to the Registrar’s Office. Upon receipt of the completed form, the Registrar’s Office updates the equivalency file for the particular academic unit and enters the evaluation on the TVEX screen. The evaluations are available to all university personnel on the TEVX system for all universities in Kansas, schools from surrounding states, and many international universities from which WSU receive transfer students. The system facilitates advising and aids work with individual student program planning.

If the department requests additional information, the Registrar’s Office requests the information from the respective college. The course is recorded in the TVEX system as “needing evaluation” until a syllabus has been received. Departments can also request to evaluate courses on an individual basis. When provided an updated evaluation by a department for a course already on the TVEX , the Registrar’s Office will record the ending date of the previous evaluation and the beginning date for the new evaluation. (for example MATH350 is no longer offered so courses equivalent to MATH350 are now General electives unless validated by signature from the department chair as equivalent to MATH655 at WSU.

III. TRANSFER EVALUATION PROTOCOL WEAKNESSES

Based on the concerns raised in the 2002 report of the General Education Ad hoc Committee,  the current taskforce concludes that the current transfer equivalency protocol suffers from weaknesses specific to:

a.                  limited awareness of the details of the protocol and its enforcement among participants (particular faculty) involved in the process.

b.                  Inconsistency in what actually constitutes course materials necessary for transfer equivalency evaluation of courses offered at other institutions.

c.                  Irregularity in responses to requests for course materials necessary for evaluation.

d.                  Lack of an periodic vehicle within the WSU review protocol for updating and reviewing transfer equivalency of courses offered at other institutions.

IV. TASKFORCE TRANSFER EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS

1.                  Clarify and strengthen enforcement of existing protocol for evaluating course transfer equivalency..

2.                  Clarify what course materials are needed to perform an appropriate course evaluation. Although course materials required for transfer equivalency evaluation may vary by discipline or academic unit, equivalency should be based minimally on materials similar to what is required for new course proposals at WSU. Course materials for course transfer equivalency should ALWAYS include a catalog description and course number AND a current course syllabus. The syllabus should include a description of course objectives and course content, identify textbook or readings, course requirements, grading and/or assessment of student performance, and instructor credentials (instructors discipline and degree).  In case of general education courses, clarity on courses appropriate for general education program inclusion should occur with WSU classes to better identify what is sought in course syllabi from other institutions.

3.                  Institute a calendar of evaluation and impose a strict enforcement of regular review of transfer equivalency congruent with the current policy.  A cycled (3 years after initial evaluation. Course already on the TEVX should be update within the next three years) evaluation  will more effectively enable the effort involved with reviewing the large number of courses already in the TEVX equivalency system.

Since large numbers of transfer students enter WSU with fewer than 60 credit hours in transfer, most re-evaluation efforts should focus (at least initially) on courses appropriate for General Education Program consideration. These classes would include prerequisites for entry to professional programs (for example, basic sciences/math for health professions or engineering), This would involve most transfer work from the community college system and could also be focused on any community college course that, in the prior evaluation system has an upper division equivalency at WSU.

4.                  A standing senate committee (faculty senate academic affairs committee) should be charged with the responsibility for establishing a protocol and overseeing that cycled reviews of course transfer equivalency are undertaken. The committee should work with the Registrar’s Office to identify a protocol for initiating the regular review and for instituting a calendar of evaluation for each departments.

As schools add or change courses institutions can be notified that they will need to submit current course materials every three years. The department is charged with the re-evaluation and returning the evaluation forms to the Registrar’s Office for the purpose of updating the TEVX data base.

At the oversight committee’s request the registrar should notify transfer institutions of upcoming re-evaluations and request updated course materials. Course materials should sent to the Registrar’s Office should be forwarded to the appropriate department for re-evaluation. Upon completion the updated evaluation forms signed by the department chair or appointed person are returned to the Registrar’s Office and the updates are recorded electronically.

5.                  The evaluation of transfer equivalency evaluation should continue to rest entirely with the department teaching a course. No other unit or persons within the university should be permitted to establish equivalency.

6.                  Provide opportunities for training of faculty and clerical staff to assure familiarity with university protocol and basic requirements.

V. TASKFORCE PROPOSAL 1.

            The taskforces recommendations are summarized in the following proposals and it is hoped that the proposed oversight committee will be charged with developing and instituting the recommendations offered by the taskforce.

i.          Each department has the sole responsibility for determining if a specific course offered at another institution can be accepted for the purpose of transfer credit as being equivalent to a course offered by said department. Neither an advisor, administrator nor other individual in a college office is entitled to determine the equivalence of courses for the purpose of transfer. Each department is responsible for maintaining, reviewing and revising the information contained in WSU Transfer Guides.

ii.          Each department at Wichita State University shall review every three years each course offered by another institution and listed as being equivalent to a course offered by said department in a WSU Transfer Guide. Each year a subset of the external courses listed in a WSU Transfer Guide shall be reviewed by the appropriate departments; ideally this subset should consist of approximately one third of these external courses. In consultation with the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee, the Offices of Academic Affairs and the Registrar shall devise and implement a procedure to assist Departments in conducting these reviews; in particular, this procedure shall include the timely notification of departments of upcoming reviews, a process for obtaining course, instructor or other information required by a department to conduct its review, and assistance with other issues related to these reviews.

VI. CONSISTENCY IN COURSE NUMBERING AT WSU

            The second charge of the committee was to address the issue of course numbering at WSU, particular with respect to consistency and equivalency across the curriculum within and between institutions. Two concerns include a) maintaining consistency and integrity among course levels and course content in the WSU curriculum, and b) facilitating appropriate transfer credit evaluation between WSU and other institutions.

            The determination of course curriculum and course levels is clearly the prerogative of the individual departments at any institution. However, some effort should be taken to address the concern for establishing greater consistency among levels of courses among schools offering similar curricula. From discussions with university advisors and from information gleaned from the school web-sites, it seems evident that course numbering systems lack consistency among all institutions. Even 2-year institutions seem highly individualistic with respect to their application of course numbers. If one assumes that 2-year colleges should offer only introductory classes followed by advanced course at 4-year schools complications become immediately apparent.   Some examples from the WSU catalog are listed below to illustrate some of these complications associated with inconsistencies in course numbering among schools.

For example, in math, Calculus III is often considered part of an introductory calculus sequence and is taken at the sophomore level by many students, including students at 2-year schools. At WSU, Calculus III is a 300 level class and is thus considered a further studies course.

Another example is Organic Chemistry classes which follow an introductory year of inorganic chemistry and are usually sophomore classes. At WSU, Organic Chemistry is designated as a 500 level or upper division class.

In social sciences, classes such as Developmental Psychology and Child Psychology are found in most 2-year colleges because they are required prerequisites for certain 2-year programs. In many schools they are sophomore level classes (At Kansas University Psychology of Personality is a 100 level class and Social Psychology is a 200 level class). At WSU these classes are both upper division.

VII. COURSE NUMBERING RECOMMENDATION

1.      The issue facing WSU may include the need for various departmental units to re-asses the course numbering sequences within their respective curricula in conjunction with a re-assessment of existing similar transfer equivalency evaluations of similar courses offered at other institutions.

2.      Course numbering should be reviewed by the university/college curriculum committees in cooperation with each department to optimize consistency among programs.

3.      Advisors are encouraged to contact appropriate departments and curriculum committees to resolve problems arising from differences in course numbering among WSU and other institutions.

V. TASKFORCE PROPOSAL 2.

            The taskforces recommendations for addressing course numbering issues are summarized in the following proposal:

i.                     Each department has the sole responsibility for assigning numbers to specific course offered in their respective curricula. Each department shall work with the university or college level curriculum committee to properly address and resolve any conflicts arising from inconsistencies in course numbering between WSU and other institutions.

ii.                   Conflicts associated with course numbering arising from the transfer crediting process should not be resolved individually by advisors but should be brought to the attention of appropriate curriculum committees.