Skip to main content

Cross-Network Programming Policies

The original cross-Network policy document was developed by the Cross-Network Policies Working Group in October 2014. The policies were developed primarily to inform the decisions of the Cross-Network Operations Group (CNOG) and to provide guidance to cross-Network instructors. The policies have evolved and were most recently updated in October 2023 to reflect current practices. The CNOG reviews this document annually for updates.

Definitions

Instructor policies

Participant policies

Definitions

CIRTL Programming

The policies in this document refer to cross-Network programming (also referred to as “offerings”) including courses, workshops, events, and teaching institutes designed for participants from across CIRTL’s member institutions. Courses can range from 4 to 12 weeks, are cohort-based, and include some sort of final project or cumulative work effort for participants. Workshops typically have 1 or 2 sessions, are cohort-based, and often have a concrete work product that participants develop in sessions. Events can be single sessions or in 3- or 4-event series, are not cohort-based, and typically feature multiple speakers or presenters. Teaching institutes are multi-day, intensive cohort-based experiences where participants explore specific topics in teaching and learning in depth. All programming should reflect inclusive pedagogy.

Instructor policies

Instructor Qualifications

Faculty and staff

Instructors must have a full-time appointment with a CIRTL member institution either as faculty or staff and experience in teaching and designing and/or executing online coursework. Instructors should have familiarity with the CIRTL core ideas and involvement in local CIRTL activities.

Future faculty led programming

While most CIRTL cross-Network programming is facilitated by faculty or staff at CIRTL member institutions, the opportunity to facilitate programming at a national scale can be a valuable professional development opportunity for graduate students and postdocs (“future faculty”). The goal of this policy is to provide well-prepared future faculty with additional facilitation experience that is sponsored and supported by their institutional leader(s).

To achieve this goal, cross-Network programs may be led by future faculty under the following conditions:

  1. The institutional leader or administrative co-leader must submit the programming proposal on behalf of the future faculty facilitator. The proposer is responsible for the quality of the programming and is expected to provide guidance, as needed, to the future faculty facilitator about the development and delivery of the program.
  2. The proposal submitter is responsible for ensuring the future faculty facilitator is qualified and prepared for this experience, attesting that:
    1. The future faculty facilitator has participated in CIRTL programming at their local institution and/or through cross-Network programming.
    2. The future faculty facilitator has prior experience facilitating their proposed offering at their local institution.
  3. The types of programming facilitated by future faculty are limited to workshops, drop-in events, and self-paced asynchronous offerings. Courses or institutes can be co-facilitated with an instructor qualified under section 1 of CIRTL’s instructor qualification policy.

CNOG will use its discretion to ensure an appropriate balance of instructors among current faculty, staff and future faculty.

Proposals for cross-Network Programming

All cross-Network programming is taught by volunteers from across the CIRTL Network. Volunteer instructors can either teach core CIRTL programming – developed specifically for CIRTL, with pre-existing instructional materials – or propose their own idea for a course, workshop, event, teaching institute, or some other kind of offering. Detailed guidance on submitting a proposal, including deadlines for upcoming terms, is available on CIRTL’s website.

Proposals are submitted via CIRTL’s cross-Network programming proposal form. Instructors provide information about programming logistics (format, contact hours, etc.), learning outcomes, content (including how instructors will demonstrate inclusive and equitable practices), and assessment and evaluation.

Instructors should coordinate with their local CIRTL leaders to ensure leaders are aware of their proposed contributions to the cross-Network. If an instructor does not meet CIRTL’s instructor qualifications, their institutional leader will need to submit a letter of support to the CNOG to inform the committee’s proposal review process.

Instructors should normally design courses that accommodate a minimum class size of about 25. Smaller class sizes can be considered if appropriate on pedagogical grounds.

The Cross Network Operation Group reviews proposals for approval and may suggest modifications in consultation with the instructor team. 

Incorporation of CIRTL Core Ideas and Learning Goals

CIRTL’s core ideas and learning goals are foundational to CIRTL preparation of future faculty.  For this reason, cross-Network offerings should consider and make use of these core ideas and learning goals to the degree that they relate to the specific topic(s) of the offering.  Programming should align with the core ideas and fall within at least one learning goal.  CNOG will review whether learning goals are reflected in instructor approaches, content and/or student outcomes.

Formal Evaluation

To ensure consistent quality in cross-Network programs and to enable continued quality improvement, every cross-Network program will be evaluated by the participants and instructional team. 

Evaluation workflow:

  • CIRTL staff and instructor teams develop evaluations for each offering, based on CIRTL’s standard evaluation. All programming must include CIRTL’s core questions (bolded in that evaluation survey), and additional questions are optional. Alternatively, instructors may choose to develop their own surveys and fold CIRTL’s core questions into their evaluation instruments.
  • After programming ends, all participants receive an evaluation survey
  • After student responses are in, instructors meet with CIRTL staff to reflect on student input, what went well, what they might change in the future, and other observations.
  • CIRTL staff compile evaluation packets with syllabi (when available), instructor reflections, and student evaluations for the CNOG to review (see below). 

The CNOG reviews all programming evaluations at one of two times. 

  1. If the program is likely to be run again in a subsequent semester (e.g., core programming), the evaluation is reviewed when programs for that semester are being planned. 
  2. If the program is unlikely to be run again, or undetermined, the evaluation is reviewed the semester following the program. 

Review includes close reading by two members of the CNOG, and discussion of outcomes by the whole committee. Any discussed recommendations for improvement are captured in committee review notes and fed back to instructors when the same or a similar program is proposed again. CNOG feedback also informs CIRTL support for future programming of the same format (course, workshop, etc.), approach (large audience, peer review, etc.), or topic. 

Ownership of cross-Network Instructional Materials

Instructional material ownership rules of the instructor’s institution are primary. In general, authors or their institutions own, and may copyright, course materials.

Instructional materials should indicate authorship and date, and for revisions, the revising author, revision number and date.

CIRTL can facilitate material sharing upon request; staff and faculty from member institutions who are interested in accessing cross-Network instructional materials can contact CIRTL staff for assistance. Any instructor reusing material should cite previous authors, and should obtain permission to use copyrighted instructional materials produced by others.

Authors may control dissemination of their course materials outside the Network, but may not use the CIRTL brand without permission.

Recording Your Programming

Instructors can choose to record programming or not. If instructors have no preference, CIRTL Central recommends different recording practices depending on programming type and topic. CIRTL Central is responsible for recording programming and managing access to recordings after programming is over.

When cohort-based programming is recorded (courses, workshops, institutes), recordings are shared via Zoom with participants only. However, CIRTL cannot guarantee complete FERPA protection given that participants might share their recording access with others.

When non-cohort-based programming is recorded (drop-in events open to the general public), recordings are shared via YouTube.

Policies for participants

Tuition

There will be no tuition exchanges among universities for CIRTL programming. There will be no fees charged by the Network for participants from Network institutions taking CIRTL cross-Network courses. In the event that non-Network participants take courses, the Network may charge a fee.

Registration Process

CIRTL’s website has detailed guidance on when and how interested participants can register to attend cross-Network programming.

Instructors decide if their programming is capped or uncapped. When seats are limited, registrants from member institutions or participants who are CIRTL alumni get priority over unaffiliated registrants. Uncapped programming is open to members, alumni, and the general public. Exceptions can be made on a case by case basis.

Accessibility of cross-Network Programming

Cross-Network programming and associated materials use Universal Design for Learning approaches to support an accessible learning environment for all participants. CIRTL programs are designed and developed to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. Participants are encouraged to contact CIRTL for additional accessibility needs.

To comply with federal and state laws on accessibility, electronic and information technology acquisitions will be compliant with federal standards explained in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2024 Title II regulations governing web and mobile accessibility.

Compliance with this policy is the shared responsibility of CIRTL Central, the host institution, where the instructor is located, and the partner institution, where the participant is located.

Access to Recordings

Programming is recorded on a case-by-case basis depending on instructor preference. CIRTL Central is responsible for recording programming and managing access to recordings after programming is over. Participants are not allowed to record programming themselves.

When cohort-based programming is recorded (courses, workshops, institutes), recordings are shared via Zoom with participants only. Participants are not allowed to share recordings with others who did not receive the recording directly from CIRTL.

When non-cohort-based programming is recorded (drop-in events open to the general public), recordings are shared via YouTube.

Data Management

CIRTL collects data from cross-Network programming participants based on their registration and activity once enrolled. Instructors may refer to participant data to improve their programming (making content relevant to specific disciplines, for instance). Institution-specific participation data is shared once a semester with institutional leaders. De-identified data is analyzed and shared annually in cross-Network programming annual reports.

CIRTL Academic Integrity Statement

CIRTL will include the following academic integrity statement on its website, its LMS, in course syllabi, and other correspondence with cross-Network participants as appropriate:

The activity you are engaging in is provided through the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL). CIRTL is an international network of more than 40 institutions with a mission to develop future faculty committed to implementing and advancing evidence-based teaching practices to enrich undergraduate education that is accessible to all learners. As a community, we have shared learning goals and values. When you learn with us, you become part of the CIRTL community, and we ask that you keep our mission, learning goals, and values in mind as you engage in this activity.

This activity is intended to promote your professional development in ways that align with CIRTL’s shared mission and learning goals. We value that you have chosen to spend your time and energy learning with us, and we encourage you to reflect on what you want to get from this experience. What you get out of this activity will largely depend on what you put into it. Make sure your effort with associated materials, assessments, and discussions reflects your goals for being here.

We also encourage you to be aware and mindful of any expectations at your home institution around academic integrity, and to engage in this work in ways that are in alignment with those expectations. We may reach out to your home institution if we have concerns about your engagement. Consequences for violations of your institution’s expectations are at the discretion of your home institution.

The CNOG recommending against any central “policing” of academic integrity. Instead, the committee favors the implementation of this statement, with any “policing” to occur at the institutional level, as determined by the institution. It will not be standard for CIRTL Central to provide information about academic integrity issues, however, in rare circumstances, CIRTL Central may contact local leaders about academic integrity issues with their participants. How institutions choose to approach academic integrity/academic misconduct with regards to CIRTL activities/coursework is at their discretion.

Original policies developed by Cross-Network Policies Working Group, 10/2014 consisting of Cynthia Brame (Vanderbilt), Sue Bloomfield (Texas A&M), Chuck Kutal (U Georgia), Rob Linsenmeier (Northwestern), chair, Bob Mathieu, ex officio, Robin Greenler, ex officio.