AA 21 Course Materials Selection Policy

POLICY STATEMENT

This policy provides guidance to faculty for selection of print or electronic Textbooks and other classroom materials for Nevada State College (NSC) courses.

DEFINITIONS

Adjunct Faculty: Part-time faculty serving on temporary Letter of Appointment (LOA) contracts.

Textbook: Electronic or print book that is selected to accompany a specific academic course.

Supplemental Material: Resources, equipment, or materials in addition to the Textbook that support the enhancement of a specific academic course.

PROCEDURES

I.              Introduction

NSC affirms its absolute commitment to the principle that the selection of Textbooks and Supplemental Material is the right and responsibility of the faculty member assigned to teach each particular course. These rights and responsibilities are subject to limitations allowed in this policy. This policy provides guidelines to faculty and departments in the selection of Textbooks and Supplemental Materials.

II.            Guiding Principles for Adopting Textbooks and Supplemental Materials

Consistent with the mission of NSC, faculty should consider the following when adopting Textbooks and Supplemental Materials:

A. When selecting from among Textbook and Supplementary Material options, and where possible, consider lower-cost, high-quality options such as older editions, online materials, eBooks, open educational resources, three-ring binder formats, and/or developing readers;

B. Use the same Textbook edition and Supplemental Materials for consecutive semesters, ideally for at least two (2) years. This allows students to resell books to the bookstore or sell them directly to other students after the course concludes;

C. When possible, use the approved learning management system to deliver material electronically in compliance with fair use and copyright laws;

D. When possible, provide reserve copies of Textbooks and Supplemental Materials to the campus library for loan to students.

 

Faculty must adhere to the following when adopting Textbooks and Supplemental Materials:

A. Submit Textbook and Supplemental Material orders as early as possible, and no later than the School/Department’s deadline, to allow the bookstore to order used copies;

B. Ensure all adopted Textbooks and Supplemental Materials will be used during the delivery of the class. Avoid using bundled items unless students will be required to use the entire bundled package;

C. Select Textbooks and Supplemental Material that meet common accessibility standards (e.g., readable by a screen reader; appropriate color contrast).

III.           Selection of Textbooks and Supplemental Materials

Within the timeframe and procedures established by the respective School/Department, each full-time and Adjunct Faculty member will select the required Textbooks and Supplemental Materials appropriate for their course offerings.

A. Each School/Department may, at the dean or department chair’s discretion, select the required Textbook and any Supplemental Materials for courses taught by full-time faculty who have not submitted an adoption by the established deadline, as well as for courses taught by Adjunct Faculty;

B. College leadership (e.g., Deans, Department Chairs) should not place undue influence on faculty members regarding the selection of course materials;

C. Programs or disciplines are not required to choose a standard Textbook for specific courses. However, full-time faculty within a program or discipline may designate a standard Textbook for courses taught by multiple faculty members. Decisions related to standardization should be made in consultation with all full-time faculty teaching the course and considering the principles outlined in Section II.

IV.           Compensation, Royalties, and Remuneration

Receiving compensation other than royalties contingent on the adoption of Textbooks or Supplemental Materials for a course, may be unprofessional and unethical. Receiving usual and customary payment for the review of Textbooks or Supplemental Materials is acceptable.

V.            Faculty Requiring Own Text for Class

There are no ethical problems with faculty assigning a Textbook or Supplementary Material for which they are an author, provided that the selection is consistent with this policy. If a faculty member wishes to adopt their own Textbook or Supplementary Material, the following criteria must be met:

A. The published books must be properly copyrighted by the author(s);

B. The published books are available for open sale;

C. The faculty member does not make sales directly to students; and

D. The published books assigned as a Textbook in a course are approved for such use by the Dean of the School in which the course is housed.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

Faculty Request to Assign Their Own (Self-Authored) Textbook for Class Form

 RELATED INFORMATION

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Serge Ballif, Faculty Senate Chair, May 8, 2020.
Approved by Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, May 15, 2020.
Approved by Bart Patterson, President, May 27, 2020.

AA 20 Curriculum Review Policy

POLICY STATEMENT

This policy explains the curriculum review process at Nevada State College. Curriculum review occurs through a shared governance model that involves faculty and academic administrators at multiple levels.

DEFINITIONS

Academic Year: A nine (9)-month faculty contract period beginning in August and ending in May.

Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee: A body consisting of academic faculty representatives from each School and the Library, a staff member from the Office of the Registrar, and other members as deemed necessary by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Chair.

Academic Faculty (as defined by NSHE B/R 1/03): Includes instructional, counseling, and library faculty.

PROCEDURES

I. Types of Proposals

The curriculum review process involves five types of curriculum proposals:

A. Prerequisite proposals: Adding, deleting, or changing the prerequisite(s) for a course.

B. Individual course proposals:

  1. Adding or deleting a course;
  2. Changing an existing course prefix, number, title, number of credits, grading method, or catalog description.

C. Core Curriculum proposals: Any change to the Core Curriculum, including:

  1. Adding or deleting courses from a category;
  2. Changing the categories that comprise the Core Curriculum;
  3. Changing the number of credits required in a category.

D. Minor curricular changes:

  1. Adding, deleting, or changing a course that is required for a degree program, or groups of courses students may choose among to fulfill a degree requirement, when those changes affect less than one-third (1/3) of the total major requirements for the program;
  2. Adding, deleting, or changing Concentrations or Tracks within an existing degree.

E. Substantive curricular changes:

  1. Adding or deleting programs;
  2. Changing a program’s title, mission statement, or learning objectives;
  3. Curricular changes that affect more than one-third (1/3) of the required credits within a program.

II. Levels and Types of Review

To ensure the integrity and quality of the NSC academic curriculum, proposals are developed by faculty in the related program(s) and proceed through multiple levels of review, beginning with the individual School in which a course or program is housed. The Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee and other reviewers will not consider proposals that have not been approved and forwarded by the appropriate School-level curriculum committee.

Proposal authors are responsible for ensuring that all levels of review are completed, including securing relevant external approvals by bodies such as the NSHE Common Course Numbering System or the NSHE Board of Regents. This may include working closely with the Office of the Registrar and the Office of the Provost to complete and submit all application materials.

Some levels of review are advisory; in this case, the reviewing body provides a recommendation to approve or deny the proposal and submits it to the next reviewing body for consideration. Other levels have denial authority; proposals do not move further in the review process if they are not approved at that level. The authority at each level of review varies by the type of proposal. Proposals must progress through each level in the order prescribed. As the chief academic officer for the college, the Provost has ultimate authority over curriculum decisions.

In the summary of stages of review provided below, all advisory levels are so noted; any level of review that is not noted as advisory must approve a proposal before it may move to the next level of review.

A. Prerequisite proposals:

    1. School-level Curriculum Committee
    2. Academic dean (advisory)
    3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee

B. Course proposals:

    1. School-level Curriculum Committee
    2. Academic dean (advisory)
    3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
    4. NSHE Common Course Numbering System (external body)

C. Core Curriculum proposals:

    1. Proposals submitted by Schools other than Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) begin with the following levels of review:
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • LAS School-level Curriculum Committee (advisory)
    1. Proposals submitted by LAS go directly to the LAS School-level Curriculum Committee. SOE and SON Academic Deans may view LAS Core Curriculum proposals through the curriculum tracking software and may submit suggestions or concerns to the LAS Dean and/or LAS School-level Curriculum Committee.
    2. After review by the LAS School-level Curriculum Committee, all Core Curriculum proposals then go through the following levels of review:
      • LAS Dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost

D. Minor curricular changes:

    1. School-level Curriculum Committee
    2. Academic dean (advisory)
    3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
    4. Office of the Provost

E. Substantive curricular changes:

    1. Substantive changes to existing programs and new minors under 30 credits
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost
  1. Substantive changes leading to new programs or minors over 30 credits
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost
      • NSHE Academic Affairs Council (for program additions or deletions; external body)
      • Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (for program    additions, deletions, and some changes; external body)

III. Curriculum Committees

A. School-level curriculum committees: The Dean of each School shall appoint a curriculum committee consisting of Academic Faculty. This committee is responsible for reviewing all curriculum proposals that fall under the School’s purview. The individual Schools may develop appropriate procedures and guidelines for School-level curriculum review processes.

B. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (FSCC): The FSCC is charged with reviewing all course, core curriculum, and degree program proposals, as well as proposals to change course prerequisites. Generally, the FSCC is an advisory body that reviews and makes recommendations on curriculum proposals; however, the FSCC has the authority to deny or move forward prerequisite and course proposals (i.e., these two categories of proposals cannot move forward without FSCC approval).

  1. Membership:
    • Chair: The FSCC Chair is a voting member of the committee. Annually, during the May meeting, the Faculty Senate elects the FSCC chair from among its members; the Chair serves a term of one academic year, beginning the following July 1. Per the Senate Bylaws, the FSCC will receive a stipend for the academic year. Chairs may serve more than one consecutive term. The Chair’s responsibilities include:
      • scheduling monthly meetings of the FSCC during the academic year;
      • informing proposal authors of the date and time of the meeting at which their proposal will be discussed;
      • updating FSCC records and minutes, including records of all proposals received and reviewed;
      • facilitating the Committee’s voting process;
      • providing Committee updates to the Faculty Senate;
      • updating authors as their proposals move through the review process;
      • indicating the FSCC’s decision and moving proposals to the next stage in the review process, as appropriate;
      • compiling a list at the end of each fall and spring semester of all prerequisite and course proposals approved during that term and submitting the list to the Provost.
    • Voting members: Each School and the Library have two representatives on the FSCC; the FSCC Chair serves as one of the representatives from their academic unit. With the exception of the FSCC Chair, Deans select the academic faculty representatives from their Schools; these representatives do not have to be members of the Faculty Senate. The Library Director will select the academic faculty representatives from the Library. The Library Director may serve as one voting member from the Library.
    • Non-voting members: The Registrar is a non-voting member of the FSCC. The FSCC Chair may invite additional non-voting members to serve on the Committee.
  1. Proposal approval: Proposals are approved by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of voting members.

IV. Review Criteria

Curriculum proposals are reviewed based on the following considerations:

A. Consistency with mission: The consistency between the proposal and the mission of the School and the College.

    1. The FSCC and other reviewers will consider the judgment and input of the relevant Dean, department chair (if applicable), and School-level curriculum committee. Reviewers beyond the level of the individual School will also exercise their independent judgment to evaluate whether a proposal is consistent with the mission of the School and the College.

B. Appropriate rigor: The extent to which the proposal reflects the academic content and rigor expected at a comprehensive state institution. Reviewers consider the following factors:

    1. Whether the proposal author demonstrates that similar courses or programs are offered at comparable comprehensive state institutions in the U.S.;
    2. Whether the content of courses and programs are consistent with course/program titles and descriptions;
    3. Whether the academic content appears commensurate with the level of the course or program (e.g., lower- or upper-division; undergraduate or graduate).

C. Sufficient evidence: Whether the proposal provides sufficient detail and evidence for reviewers to determine if the proposal is reasonable and appropriate given available resources and the College’s mission.

V. Timeline

The FSCC meets to consider proposals once per month from September through December and February through April of each Academic Year. Proposals are submitted online. All proposals must be received by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee by the first day of each month to be considered at that month’s meeting. Incomplete proposals may be returned to submitters for revisions; this may delay the review process.

Proposals that require full Faculty Senate review will be introduced by the FSCC Chair as an information item at the next Senate meeting after review by the FSCC. At minimum, proposals will be on the Faculty Senate agenda item one month as an informational item and voted on as an action item at the next Senate meeting. However, Faculty Senate may delay a vote if Senators request additional information or via a majority vote by Faculty Senate.

All proposals must be fully approved at all levels and received by the Registrar’s Office by December 1st  of each year to be included in the next academic catalog.

The Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee establishes and disseminates guidelines with detailed information about timelines and the approval process; these guidelines are updated as needed.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

  • The following NSC Curriculum Forms and information are available on the NSC portal:
    • Prerequisite Proposal E-Form
    • Course Approval Form
    • Core Curriculum Approval Form
    • Degree Approval Form
    • Course Fee Form
    • Course Fee Policy
    • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Guidelines

ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

Faculty Senate Executive Council
fsec@nsc.edu

HISTORY

Curriculum Committee Procedure approved 2/24/2009.
Curriculum Committee Procedure revised 05/2019.

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Serge Ballif, Faculty Senate Chair, October 4, 2019.
Approved by Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, October 15, 2019.
Approved by Mr. Bart Patterson, Esq., President, December 19, 2019.

AA 19 Scholarly Misconduct Policy

POLICY STATEMENT

Nevada State College neither condones nor tolerates scholarly misconduct by its employees, including academic faculty. Scholars and researchers bear the primary responsibility for the monitoring and rigorous evaluation of procedures and results of research and other scholarly activities under their supervision. All members of the College community adhere to the College’s strict standards of integrity in academic scholarship and research and are ethically obligated to report any fraudulent acts when they are known or suspected to have occurred.

DEFINITIONS

Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as authentic.

Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Scholarly Misconduct: Dishonesty in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting results. Includes Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, or other practices which seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Does not include honest error.

PROCEDURES

I. Ethical Standards for Research and Other Scholarly Activity

The NSHE Code (Chapter 6, Sections 6.2.1(y)) prohibits faculty from conducting “acts of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, falsifying research data or results, or assisting others to do the same.” Faculty and staff at Nevada State College shall uphold the following ethical standards in the performance of their activities:

A. Project Directors (PDs) and Principal Investigators (PIs) must comply with all internal and external requirements for protecting human subjects, project personnel, and the public and for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals.

B. Scholars and researchers must not fall below accepted professional standards in proposing their activities, carrying them out, and reporting their results. Primary data must be scrupulously collected and retained.

C. All participants in scholarly/research activity must avoid both intentional and negligent behavior which may result in violation of the law; dishonesty or fraud; Fabrication; Falsification; or Plagiarism.

D. Cooperative efforts require mutual attention to the integrity of the scholarly processes involved. Joint authorship entails joint responsibility; each author claiming shared credit must be aware of the risk of shared discredit.

E. Senior scholars and researchers must avoid exploitation of junior colleagues and students. Claims of credit, co-authorship, and intellectual property should reflect actual involvement, responsibility, and effort.

F. Project Directors and Principal Investigators performing sponsored scholarly/research activity (e.g., supported through a grant, contract, or gift) must be free to manage their sponsored funding to the maximum extent allowed by the funding agency and the rules of the College. They must be knowledgeable of and responsive to internal and external requirements of financial responsibility and accountability to avoid misallocation, misappropriation, or misuse of sponsor/donor funds.

G. Present or proposed activities or relationships which present a conflict of interest (e.g., affect the objectivity of research or scholarship, give the appearance of being motivated by private financial gain, and/or involve unacceptable commitments for a scholar/researcher) must be disclosed and approved by the employee’s supervisor and the Office of the Provost prior to committing to such activities or relationships.

II. Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Research or Scholarly Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 6 of the NSHE Handbook.

A. All allegations of misconduct should be reported in writing to the Executive Vice Provost (or, in the absence of this individual, to the Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives). Allegations must be signed by the submitter. Wherever possible, the allegation must specify details including the date, time, place, persons involved, witnesses, and circumstances of the alleged misconduct.

B. The Executive Vice Provost will conduct an inquiry in accordance with NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2 and, based on this inquiry, will make a determination regarding whether a valid allegation of misconduct exists. The Executive Vice Provost will make a recommendation to the President to dismiss the allegation, accept an informal resolution (as described in NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2(c)), or conduct a hearing (NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2(d)). If the President determines that a hearing is warranted, a hearing will be conducted in accordance with NSHE Code, Sections 6.8.2.(3) and 6.9. The President may instead dismiss the complaint, accept an informal resolution, or determine that a reprimand or warning is appropriate, as set forth in NSHE Code Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

C. The maintenance of confidentiality is the guiding principle for this process, to protect both those who make the allegations and those against whom the allegations are made. As few people as are necessary shall be involved in the process, and all records dealing with an allegation, its review, and its disposition shall be treated in accordance with NSHE Code Chapter 5, Section 5.6 and Chapter 6, Sections 6.14 and 6.15.

D. If an inquiry involves funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the College is required to immediately report such inquiry to the Federal DHHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The Hearing Committee and any federal sponsors must submit a report to ORI within 120 days of the beginning of the hearing.

E. If an allegation of Scholarly Misconduct is made regarding a research project involving human subjects, the Executive Vice Provost may inform the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which may conduct an audit or other oversight activities according to IRB policy.

RELATED INFORMATION

  • NSHE Handbook Title 2, Section 5.6, 6.1, 6.6, 6.8, and 6.9
  • NSC Institutional Review Board Policy (RE 1)

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Serge Ballif, Faculty Senate Chair, September 7, 2019.
Approved by Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, September 11, 2019.
Approved by Bart Patterson, President, September 24, 2019.