Policy Portal

Administrative Policy: Academic

Course Type Definition Policy

Policy Number: 3349-AC-201
Effective Date: 03/09/2017
Updated:
Reviewed:
Responsible Department: Enrollment Services
Applies To: All University Employees
Approval Authority: Office of the VPAA

A. Purpose

To establish clear definitions, associated characteristics, and curricular approval guidelines for various types of credit‐bearing courses offered by the academic programs of the University.

In order to provide faculty with opportunities to collaborate across disciplinary and departmental lines, share resources and ideas, and/or offer students the opportunity to engage in multidisciplinary, cross‐disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning, NEOMED must be able to provide clarification regarding course types, determine whether the assignment of courses to a primary college may be beneficial, and establish a process by which shared courses are officially approved and/or made available for student enrollment.

B. Scope

This policy defines all credit‐bearing course types of the University and its respective programs and is established under the general authority of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the chief academic officer of the University. Entities affected by the Policy are the Colleges of the University, Curriculum Committees, Faculty, Students, and the Registrar.

C. Definitions

  1. “Cross‐listed course” refers to a single course offered jointly by two or more colleges/departments that is identical in every aspect other than the course identifier.
  2. “Dual‐listed course” refers to a single course offered independently or jointly with another department/college that can be transcripted at multiple levels (e.g., UG/GR/Prof).
  3. “Co‐scheduled/Meets‐with course” refers to circumstances where two or more independent courses that have limited shared content, meet together to capitalize on the delivery of common content only.

D.Policy Statement

  1. Cross‐listed Course
    1. Characteristics: With the exception of the course prefix, a cross‐listed course is equivalent in every aspect, regardless of student enrollment.
      1. Cross‐listed courses and proposals must be identical in title, level, prerequisites, description, credits, grading practice, meeting times and days, and number of times a course may be taken for credit. When possible, the cross‐listed courses should carry the same course number.
      2. The typical cross‐listed course is jointly developed and resourced by more than one department/college.
      3. Cross‐listed courses may be identified collectively or independently within the course schedule and University Catalog, but descriptions will include a cross‐listed designation, typically a final sentence that reads “Cross‐listed with [prefix].”
    2. Guidelines: A cross‐listed course should only be considered when two or more departments wish to collaborate on the offering of a course with significant cross‐disciplinary content and shared responsibility for the course. Cross‐listing should be done purposefully and sparingly to indicate a true overlap of disciplinary foundations.
      1. Cross‐listed courses are arranged and approved through a collaborative process utilizing existing curriculum approval structures, therefore, course approval forms must be submitted at the same time by the collaborating departments/colleges.
      2. Proposals for cross‐listed courses must be identical in all aspects except for the subject code and course number (if a common number/course identifier is not available).
      3. Changes to a cross‐listed course cannot be made unilaterally, but
        instead must be done through consultation and by
        agreement/approval of all concerned departments/colleges.
      4. Students engaged in cross‐listed courses share the same course syllabus.
      5. Instances of academic or professional misconduct from a student enrolled in a cross‐listed course that may jeopardize their ability to continue in the course will be shared by the instructors/course directors with the academic leadership of each departments/colleges represented.
      6. In the event that a course outcome in a cross‐listed course results in an unsatisfactory grade and the student wishes to invoke a grade dispute, the policies of the college in which the student’s primary program of study is affiliated will govern.
  2. Dual‐listed Course
    1. Characteristics: A dual‐listed course is when a single course is offered at multiple levels, meeting in the same time and place, with the same instructors.
      1. While course content and credit value is identical for all enrolled students, there are variations in expectations regarding course rigor, competencies, and/or assessment measures that are applied to different student populations (e.g., graduate student course expectations and assessment may be different from those of professional degree students participating in the same experience).
      2. A dual‐listed course may be offered by a single college/department or in collaboration with multiple departments/colleges.
      3. In instances where the course is shared between multiple departments/colleges, the faculty may utilize a shared syllabus that specifies the respective evaluation criterion and outcomes for the level of the course or population of student, or they may create separate syllabi.
    2. Guidelines: Dual‐listed courses are identical in course content, credit value, day and time of offering, and instructor/course directors(s), but are offered at different course levels. Expectations regarding academic rigor, competencies and assessment differ to reflect the appropriate course level designation and/or student population.
      1. While the most common dual‐listed course scenario in higher education is a pairing of Undergraduate and Graduate level courses, NEOMED utilizes this definition for the pairing of Graduate and Professional level courses.
      2. Similar to cross‐listed courses, dual‐listed courses that are shared between multiple departments/colleges should be done purposefully and sparingly to indicate a true overlap of disciplinary foundations, and must be approve through a collaborative process utilizing existing curriculum approval structures.
      3. Course approval forms for dual‐listed courses must be submitted at the same time by the collaborating units.
      4. Changes to a dual‐listed course that is shared between multiple departments/colleges cannot be made unilaterally, but instead must be done through consultation and by agreement/approval of all concerned departments/colleges.
      5. Students engaged in cross‐listed courses share the same course syllabus, but that syllabus must clearly articulate differences in expectations, assignments and/or assessments by course level. Instances of academic or professional misconduct from a student enrolled in a cross‐listed course that may jeopardize the student’s ability to continue in the course will be shared by the instructors/course directors with the academic leadership of each departments/colleges represented.
      6. In the event that a course outcome in a cross‐listed course results in an unsatisfactory grade and the student wishes to invoke a grade dispute, the policies of the college in which the student’s primary program of study is affiliated will govern.
    3. Co‐scheduled/Meets‐with Course
      1. Characteristics: Co‐Scheduled/Meets‐with courses involve two or more courses, all with their own unique course identifiers and syllabi, that are meeting together to capitalize on the delivery of common content.
        1. Co‐scheduled/Meets‐with courses are distinguished from crosslisted and dual listed courses by the fact that only some portion of the academic experience is common between the classes.
        2. Students enrolled in one section of a co‐scheduled/meets‐with course may share some or the majority of lecture offerings with students in the other course(s) in the arrangement, but have different lab or discussion sections that focus on different topics or competencies, and may require different assignments. For example, one course in the arrangement might include laboratory time when the other requires the students to participate in a service or clinical project, or one course might assign traditional grades when the other course might assign only pass/fail.
      2. Co‐scheduled/Meets‐with courses are not identical, although some portion of the content is common.
        1. Each course involved in the co‐scheduled agreement has its own course identifier.
        2. Course assignments, credit values, grading practices, and instructors may have some similarities or may be completely different.
          1. Because co‐schedule/meets‐with courses are intended to capitalize on teaching and scheduling efficiencies, they require substantial levels of collaboration between the departments/colleges involved who shared responsibility for communicating the scheduling nuances to support office (e.g., Academic Services, Enrollment Services, Student Affairs) and to students with expediency.
          2. While co‐scheduled/meets‐with courses may be proposed and approved by each department/college, collaboration in scheduling is strongly advised.
    4. Interprofessional Course
      1. Course(s) designed for students from two or more health professions that include content and objectives that promote students learning with, from and about each other, within their occupational context, to improve collaboration, practice and the quality of healthcare from a health professions team perspective.
    5. Interdisciplinary Course
      1. Course(s) designed for students from two or more health professions that do not have specific learning expectations regarding collaboration and sharing of discipline specific content expertise and perspective.

University Policies

Office of General Counsel