CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
September 9, 2008
Members Present:
Jas Bhangal, Begoña Cirera, Michael Langdon, Jim Matthews, Hilal Ozdemir,
Wayne Pitcher, Ernesto Victoria, Patricia Shannon
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church, Edna Danaher, Gene Groppetti, Kaaren Krueg, Patricia Posada
Guests:
Jan Novak, Rebecca Otto
I.
II.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by committee chair Patricia Shannon.
Approval of Minutes of August 26, 2008
MSC (Matthews/Pitcher) to approve the minutes of August 26, 2008, as presented.
III.
DE Report
Jan Novak reported that the Distance Education Committee, as a subcommittee of the
Curriculum Committee, is proposing a name change to Committee on Online Learning
and a slight change to the committee’s charge. She distributed a document containing the
changes, the Spring 2009 approval timeline, and a copy of the DE Course Proposal Form.
In a discussion on whether an online instructor must have an email account, Jan said that
although the requirement is not directly addressed in the Faculty Contract, the union will
support the requirement. The committee will build links to instructors’ email accounts
into their Website. Consensus was that while we can require an email account, we cannot
require that instructors have a web page.
MSC (Matthews/Pitcher) that the committee approve the revision to the charter and the
name change and forward the request to the Faculty/Academic Senate.
IV.
Biology 2, 4, 6
Rebecca Otto distributed revisions to the course outlines for Biology 2, 4, and 6, adding
Mathematics 55 as a prerequisite to satisfy new transfer requirements by University of
California. We have an opportunity to resubmit these courses for UC Transfer in
October.
Needed on Biology 4 and 6:
• Remove “Intermediate Algebra” from the Prerequisite of “Mathematics 55.”
• Phrase grade requirement as “completed with a grade of C or higher.”
MSC (Pitcher/Matthews) to accept the packet with the changes noted above.
V.
SLOACs and the Course Outline of Record
Rebecca Otto distributed two documents: Chabot College Course Level SLO Plan and
Proposal for Integrating the SLOAC into the Existing College Infrastructure. Discussion
revealed that the SLO might, but doesn’t have to, be drawn from the Expected Outcomes
on the course outline.
Curriculum Committee
9-9 -08, page 2
Rebecca stated that the committee’s responsibility is to be sure the SLO Plan form is
included in the curriculum packet and forwarded to the SLO committee. The Curriculum
Committee is not responsible for discussing or approving the form. Consensus was that
the form should be submitted with any new or revised course outline brought to the
committee after the Flex day on October 7.
Discussion included:
• How an adjunct instructor would know the SLOs for a given course if they are
not included on the course outline. (A copy of the SLO Plan might be kept with
the course outline in the Division office.)
• Do SLOs replace the expected outcomes?
• Are adjunct faculty given an orientation. Some are not aware that we have
course outlines.
• Is the SLO course specific rather than teacher specific? (Yes)
MSC (Matthews/Ozdemir) to approve the inclusion of the Course Level SLO Plan form
in curriculum packets and the committee’s responsibility of forwarding the form to the
SLO committee. [Clarification: while the Curriculum Committee will be incorporating
the SLO forms into our Curriculum process, there will be no action taken until after Flex
Day in October. From the Minutes of 9/16/08]
VI.
Curriculum and Title V Review
Patricia Shannon distributed a Credit Course Repetition chart and initiated a discussion of
the subject. Jane Church added that Counseling has a form that deals with repetition
exceptions. To illustrate why keeping track of course repetition is critical, it was noted
that the college does not receive payment from the State for repetitions in excess of what
is legally allowed.
In a discussion of how the State “sees” a course, it was stated that, for example, the State
sees Tennis 1, Tennis 2, and Tennis 3 as all being the same course, “tennis.”
VII.
Good of the Order
Patricia outlined ways that the committee might act on presentations:
1. Full review; full discussion on all elements of the presentation;
2. Approve by consensus;
3. Approve “information only” items without discussion. These would be requests
dealing with textbook changes, term length, and assignments and methods of
evaluation.
Patricia closed the discussion with the statement that this is not something that
needs to be addressed this year. She just wanted to review the regulations for the
committee’s information. She asked members to think about how they would
like to handle these categories and come ready to discuss next week.
The Arts and Humanities division is struggling with the Curriculum timeline due to
factors such as a new dean, a new administrative assistant, and the opening of a newly
renovated building. The chair has suggested that they break their packets down by
discipline, rather than publishing one large document, and we will fit them into the
schedule as they are ready. Consensus that we agree to do this.
Curriculum Committee
9-9 -08, page 3
Wayne reported that he was unable to convert the Curriculum Handbook from InDesign
to a format that could be edited in Word. Gene and Patricia Posada requested copies of
the files.
The Statement of Rationale form is being revised to accommodate the change in
articulation process and the Library and SLO forms.
Jane asked to place change to the Biology rubric on the next agenda.
VIII.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Next Meeting: September 16, 2008, Room 1506.
kk 9/10/08
c:\documents\word\curric\2008-2009\9-9-08.min.doc