archive-edu.com » EDU » G » GSU.EDU

Total: 122

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Home | Policy Index
    2575 Full Policy Text Each institution s core curriculum shall consist of 60 semester hours 42 hours in Areas A E and 18 hours in Area F as follows Area Name Hours Area A1 Communication Skills At least 6 semester hours Area A2 Quantitative Skills At least 3 semester hours Area B Institutional Options At least 3 semester hours Area C Humanities Fine Arts and Ethics At least 6 semester hours Area D Natural Sciences Mathematics and Technology At least 4 of these hours must be in a lab science course Given the importance of the STEM disciplines any institution that wishes to drop Area D below 10 hours must make a compelling intellectual case that its core proposal will not lead to students knowing less about the natural sciences math and technology An example of such a compelling case might be if the institution proposed to put 3 or more hours of math in Area B and 7 hours of natural science in Area D At least 7 semester hours Area E Social Sciences At least 6 semester hours Area F Lower Division Major Requirements 18 semester hours The specific learning outcomes for areas A through E of an institution s core curriculum are approved by the Council on General Education In addition to Areas A E three additional learning goals US perspectives Global Perspectives and Critical Thinking are added to the core US perspectives and global perspectives are overlay requirements and each institution must designate some courses in Areas A E that satisfy these learning requirements Each institution must also develop a plan to insure that students who complete Areas A E acquire foundational critical thinking skills Courses designated as meeting the US perspectives and global perspectives overlay requirements and institutional critical thinking plans must be approved by

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4100 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Home | Policy Index
    if any and indicate the number of hours credit Course descriptions should be brief but should include the basic information necessary for students to make informed selections of courses Administration of Policy Mandating Authority University Senate Responsible Office s Office of the Registrar 2nd floor Sparks Hall 3 2275 Senate Committee on Admissions and Standards Responsible Executive s AP for Academic Programs Background None Committee Members None Contacts Position Title Campus Location Phone Number and or E mail Address Office of the Registrar 2nd Floor Sarks Hall 404 413 2275 Full Policy Text Course listings in the University catalogs shall clearly and concisely describe course content state any prerequisites list the number of laboratory hours if any and indicate the number of hours credit Course descriptions should be brief but should include the basic information necessary for students to make informed selections of courses Courses shall be listed in the catalogs only if the department college division expects to offer them within the next three years Courses not taught in the previous three years shall be reviewed automatically by means of normal college procedures and such courses shall be dropped from the catalogs unless adequate justifications for retaining them are received from the department college division Courses previously dropped from the catalogs may be reinstated only if adequate justifications for doing so are provided to the College curriculum committee Rationale or Purpose A Course listings constitute the basis for the selection of courses by many students and although these listings must be brief they should provide students with basic information about the courses B Courses should be included in the catalogs only if it is reasonable for a student to expect that courses listed will be taught sometime within the following three years C Without a systematic and periodic review

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4120 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Home | Policy Index
    of instruction are a valuable resource for a faculty members seeking to hone their skills as teachers b administrators and faculty committees responsible for assessing faculty teaching 2 The higher the rate of student participation in the evaluation process the more accurately evaluations reflect student perceptions of the course and the instruction and therefore the more valuable a resource the evaluations are 3 Student participation in the evaluation process is dropping and in light of Premise 2 this is a problem 4 Studies have shown see accompanying bibliography that faculty encouragement is the most effective means of raising the level of student participation in course evaluations Policy History None Cross References None Appendix None Additional Information Course syllabi shall contain the following items of information 1 Complete course title and number name of professor term year 2 Statement of faculty member s accessibility to students outside of class e g office hours telephone number 3 Prerequisites if any for the course 4 Course objectives that specify measurable and or observable student learning outcomes These learning outcomes should state course objectives in language that makes explicit the knowledge and skills students should have after completing the course Consequently these objectives may be quantitative or qualitative as appropriate for the learning outcomes The learning outcomes for general education courses are available on the Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness webpage as approved by the GSU Senate 2 13 04 5 Course assignments e g required readings and activities and due dates 6 Specific course requirements e g written and oral tests and reports research papers performances In cross listed undergraduate and graduate classes the course requirements will clearly specify how the nature quality and or quantity of the work expected of students and the criteria for evaluation of the work produced be commensurate

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4119 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Home | Policy Index
    of the approval process members of a program or department that is considering the initiation of formal proposal for a new degree program or major are encouraged to first discuss their intent and plans with their college dean and the Provost According to the Board of Regents Academics Handbook All proposals for new degree programs must be consistent with the college or university mission and must be high on the list of academic priorities as delineated in the institution s strategic plan It is expected that the institution will have already planned for redirected internal resources toward support of the proposed program prior to asking for new resources centrally 2 If a decision is made to proceed a proposal should be written following the format and content guidelines set forth by the Board of Regents in Section 2 03 02 New Academic Programs of the BOR Academics Handbook Currently these guidelines require proposing parties to produce initially a letter of intent and thereafter a considerably onger formal proposal To allow university bodies to better understand the full implications of the proposal and to streamline the approval process Georgia State University requires that the formal proposal be produced and employed from the outset The formal proposal must also include program and learning outcomes for the proposed degree program and describe the way in which program and learning outcomes will be evaluated It is the formal proposal that will be considered by the various university bodies set forth in the process outlined below though the letter of intent must be produced by the proposing parties and accompany the formal proposal Questions about the writing of these documents can be directed to the chair of the University Senate s Committee on Academic Programs 3 Proposing parties should note that SACS guidelines set a minimum requirement of 30 credit hours for all graduate degree programs at both the masters and doctoral level In addition Board of Regents guidelines state Absent the approval of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs no masters degree program shall exceed 36 semester credit hours BR Minutes 1953 54 pp 51 52 1953 54 pp 220 221 December 1995 p 47 4 Proposals should first be considered and approved by the academic department s or program s in question A letter of approval from the departmental chair s program director s or other individual s who would be responsible for the direct administration of the new degree or major must accompany the proposal at subsequent levels of the approval process 5 Proposals next require the approval of the dean s of the college s that would be responsible for the administration of the new degree program or major A letter of approval from the college dean s in question must accompany the proposal at subsequent levels of the approval process Individual colleges may elect to require that proposals first be considered by the college faculty a college undergraduate or graduate committee or some other college level body 6 Upon

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4101 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Home | Policy Index
    the Emergency Contact Sheet itinerary and emergency pocket brochure draft to the Study Abroad Programs office no later than 30 days prior to departure Failure to comply with this final deadline will result in the immediate cancellation of the program and revocation of University approval of the study abroad program If a program is cancelled for this reason the Provost Dean Chair of the Department Legal Affairs and the Program Director will be notified and the program will be required to go through the full review process before future trips will be authorized 12 Student Orientation Program Directors are required to present a country specific orientation to all participants with an emphasis on safety issues 13 Notification of Embassies Program Directors are required to send a list of participants including faculty and staff together with itinerary and overseas contact information to the U S Embassy or Consulate nearest the program site This registration may now be completed online at http travel state gov travel tips registration registration 1186 html 14 Emergency Pocket Brochure Program Directors their assistants and all participants should carry this pocket sized brochure at all times while abroad This brochure includes country specific information and a list of pertinent Georgia State University numbers Program specific information for the brochure must be submitted to the Study Abroad Programs Office by April 1 st for maymester summer programs for a customized emergency program brochure so that students may receive their copy prior to departure If program information is not submitted by April 1 st Program Directors will be responsible for producing the brochure themselves 15 Program Evaluation Form Program evaluations will be sent to students directly from the Study Abroad Programs staff upon their return from abroad Once collected these responses will be shared with the program director Crisis Management 1 Log of Events Program Director In the event of a crisis or emergency situation abroad the Program Director is required to immediately begin keeping a log of events It is critical for information to be shared accurately and completely as soon as possible 2 Log of Events Campus Crisis Coordinator During a crisis or emergency abroad the Campus Crisis Coordinator will keep a log of all calls and activities 3 Incident Report Form In the event of an incident involving alcohol drugs theft assault of a student injury illness arrest of a student student behavior problem or other serious situations involving a student the Program Director will complete the Incident Report Form and fax or e mail it as soon as possible to the Study Abroad Programs office This will inform the office and allow Study Abroad staff to follow up and provide support if necessary In the event University Relations has been contacted about the incident this will also allow the Study Abroad Programs office to effectively discuss the incident with University Relations Study Abroad Programs will send the completed Incident Report to the Dean of Students Office when necessary 4 Travel Warning or Travel Alert Georgia

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4082 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Home | Policy Index
    focus on critical thinking Each department s implementation of the program will require instituting a two course CTW requirement for graduation adopting and gaining approval for the necessary curricular revisions allowing for the training of the faculty members involved and providing the additional personnel necessary to offer frequent instructional feedback to students As evidence of the high priority of this initiative the University has decided to make CTW its Quality Enhancement Plan QEP as required for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools SACS Georgia State has a fair amount of flexibility when it comes to choosing the focus of our QEP This motion represents a decision that the focus of our QEP will be on improving the critical thinking skills of our students as exhibited through their writing Both critical thinking and writing are among Georgia State s general education learning outcomes Implementation of this new graduation requirement will require resources In addition to adopting this motion and making the necessary curricular revisions implementaiton will require a faculty training program and the additional personnel necessary to offer CTW courses on the 25 1 model Passiing this motion commits Georgia State to provide the necessary resources Funding for implementation of the QEP will be provided by the Provost Office The CTW program will be assessed through the existing assessment process Policy History None Cross References None Appendix None Additional Information CTW courses will be proposed by Departments and approved by the General Education Gen Ed Subcommittee of the Committee on Academic Programs CAP If they wish colleges schools may require that proposals be approved at the college level before going forward to the Gen Ed Subcommittee In their proposal to the Gen Ed Subcommittee Departments must include a written justification that outlines how each CTW course will use writing to help students achieve Georgia State s learning outcome of improving the discipline appropriate critical thinking skills of their students A CTW course meets the following requirements 1 It has at least three credit hours 2 It contains assignments that focus on critical thinking as demonstrated through writing 2 These assignments together should constitute a substantial percentage of the course grade 3 It has a maximum of a 25 1 student instructor ratio Should a CTW class have more than 25 students the instructor will receive assistance If a CTW class enrolls 51 75 students the assistance of two people would be needed and so forth This ratio may be accomplished by various means Variations include but are not limited to capping CTW sections at 25 the ideal assigning trained CTW graduate student s to sections with more than 25 students and having department or college CTW staff consultant s work with sections over 25 students In some cases it may be appropriate for the instructors of CTW courses capped at 25 to have assistance In these cases Departments and colleges may petition the Gen Ed Subcommittee and the Provost for additional funding 4 It is taught by a

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4103 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Home | Policy Index
    Technology 13th floor Commerce Building 3 4357 Responsible Executive s AP for Information Systems and Technology Background None Committee Members None Contacts Position Title Campus Location Phone Number and or E mail Address Information Systems and Technology 13th Floor Commerce Bldg 404 413 4357 Full Policy Text A single directory of official institutional e mail addresses is maintained and any requirement for official institutional e mail addresses must use this singular source Deans and Vice Presidents are responsible for disseminating this information to their respective organizations Individual users are responsible for complying with this policy and the associated standards that follow Rationale or Purpose A proliferation of various directories of institutional e mail addresses will lead to inaccuracies and duplications A single known source will serve to ensure consistency and accuracy Policy History None Cross References None Appendix None Additional Information Standards E mail Address Directory The E mail Address Directory is retained as a part of the Person Registry which maintains the official e mail address for an individual or group The Person Registry is generated and maintained by Information Systems and Technology and contains information about employees and students that is obtained from the appropriate institutional enterprise application The Person Registry also can include information on external affiliates that have other types of relationships with the university Georgia State Provided E mail Address Assignment A Georgia State University CampusID is assigned to each employee and student the standard format is first initial last name with a numeric digit if needed to make the CampusID unique The official Georgia State email address for employees is composed of this unique identifier followed by gsu edu The official Georgia State e mail address for students is composed of this unique identifier followed by student gsu edu For example faculty member John

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4200 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Home | Policy Index
    emergency communications therefore these monitors must conform to university standards related to information security management systems and network standards Administration of Policy Mandating Authority Administrative Council Responsible Office s Information Systems and Technology 13th floor Commerce Building 3 4357 Responsible Executive s Associate Provost and CIO Background None Committee Members None Contacts Position Title Campus Location Phone Number and or E mail Address Information Systems and Technology 13th floor Commerce Bldg 404 413 4357 Full Policy Text Technical Standards The digital monitor system will conform to university policies on information security The digital monitor system will offer a single management system with distributed content creation transmission and administration The transmission protocol for the digital monitor system is User Datagram Protocol UDP not multicast Note UDP sends to all on local network Multicast sends to all subscribers Placement of monitors must be approved by the Capital Budget and Space Allocation Committee CBSAC and Information Systems Technology IS T To minimize the placement of multiple monitors in a location departments can share monitors in which case each department would display local content on a rotating basis Facilities and IS T must approve the installation process for these monitors and systems The name and phone number of the unit department that controls the local content will be displayed on the monitor via a physical sticker All monitors and content will abide by the university standards for branding The digital monitor system must be on the University Network for broadcast purposes Content Standards There are three categories of content that digital monitor systems will display Local University Emergency Local content is information that is created managed and displayed by the department unit which has been assigned local control as approved by the CoreWeb Committee University content is identified by University Relations for widespread dissemination

    Original URL path: https://app.gsu.edu/policies/policy_index.cfm?view_policy=4449 (2015-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive



  •