Curriculum Committee
November 12, 2013
Members Present:
Debbie Buti, Jane Church, Begoña Cirera-Perez, Homeira Foth, Mireille
Giovanola, Mary Ines (SSCC), Lynn Klein, Larry Leach, Wayne Pitcher, Patricia
Wu
Ex-Officio:
Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Tram Vo-Kumamoto
Guests:
Marcia Corcoran, Sean McFarland, Jan Novak, Patricia Shannon
1.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 by the chair, Wayne Pitcher. He introduced
Homeira Foth who will be splitting division representative duties with Kent Uchiyama.
2.
Minutes of November 5, 2013
The following additions/corrections were made:
•
Patricia Shannon clarified her statement on Page 2: …“academically neutral.”
She said that it has taken over a year of meetings and revisions to arrive at this
version of the course and added that “it is a new course and we won’t know its
effectiveness until we try it. It is a one-unit course!”
•
Added to Karina Contreras’ statement on page 3: She didn’t want this to be a
zero sum game.
•
Larry Leach said the question he wanted to ask was: Was there interaction
between the groups before hand? (page 3)
•
The paragraph following Larry’s comments on page 3 was attributed to Lani
Wilson.
•
Begoña Cirera-Perez added to her questions as follows:
• How many courses, campus-wide, are UC transferable?
• How many students go above 100 units?
• How do we know what percent of overlap makes a course a duplicate?
•
Mireille Giovanola added to her paragraph: She said it is useful for trained
people to talk about the same subject in different venues. She sees value in this.
MSC (Giovanola/Klein) to approve the minutes of November 5, 2013, as corrected.
3.
Consent Agenda
Jane commented that there are some programs in the queue that have minor changes.
Wayne replied that he has been concentrating on courses. Tram asked whether Wayne is
communicating back to the people who missed the deadline. He will send them emails.
Jane noted that there is a disclaimer on the CurricUNET home page. She will also check
on the proposals that are stuck at LPC.
Minor Changes:
Digital Media 35A, Building a Web Site I, 1 ½ units
Digital Media 35B, Building a Web Site II, 1½units
Digital Media 36A, Video Editing I, 1½ units
Digital Media 36B, Video Editing II, 1½ units
Curriculum Committee
11/12/13, Page 2
Environmental Science 11, Humans and the Environment with Laboratory, 4 units
Environmental Science 12, Current Issues in Environmental Science, 3 units
Mathematics 15, Applied Calculus I, 3 units
Mathematics 55L, Intermediate Algebra with Lab, 5½ units
Music (MUSL) 4, Jazz Styles, 3 units
Nursing 70L, Clinical Skills Practice and Assessment Lab, ½ unit
Theater Arts 21, Introduction to Design for the Theater, 3 units
Deactivate:
Economics 5, Economic History of the United States, 3 units
Economics 12, Consumer Economics in the United States, 3 units
Political Science 50, Student Leadership, 2 units
MSC (Church/Cirera-Perez) to approve the consent agenda.
4.
Tabled Proposals
GNST 49xx, Passion and Purpose, 1 unit (for Spring 14 implementation)
GNST 5, Passion and Purpose, 1 unit (for Fall 14 implementation)
Mireille asked for verification that two weeks ago we decided that we would vote today.
Wayne confirmed that we will vote today. Mireille said that on November 5 there were a
lot of emotions in the room and she felt that she was being pressured to vote right there
and then and to vote a certain way. Wayne will conduct today’s vote via secret ballot.
Mireille asked whether the Curriculum Committee meetings are usually like this. Wayne
replied, “not usually.”
Debbie expressed the opinion that we should vote only on the experimental class at this
time, and not vote on the permanent class until it is proven successful.
Lynn asked how often voting on an experimental and a permanent class at the same time
is done. Wayne replied that we have done it this semester (Entrepreneurship classes).
Jane added that it is done on a case-by-case basis. She also confirmed that there would be
no impact on students for having taken the course as an experimental.
Begoña reported the answers to the questions she asked at the last meeting. As of this
semester, 386 current students have accumulated more than 100 units. According to the
Office of Institutional Research, in Fall 2011 45 percent of our courses transferred to
CSU and UC. Between 2000 and 2003 the range was between 43 and 51 percent. Jane
reiterated that we have more courses that are transferable to CSU because we decide
what goes on that list, and we are fairly liberal in our determinations. UC decides which
of our courses they will accept. Patricia Shannon added that we have a number of
valuable courses that do not transfer.
It was noted that the courses in question are degree applicable, stand-alone courses.
Begoña said she understands that we have to follow Title 5. She asked how this class
follows or does not follow Title 5. Wayne called attention to the Program and Course
Approval Handbook, which covers state regulations and is linked from our webpage.
Linked from the Chabot CurricUNET page is The Course Outline of Record: A
Curriculum Reference Guide, adopted Spring 2008 by the Academic Senate for
California Community Colleges. It contains a section titled “Title 5 – Standards for
Approval.”
Curriculum Committee
11/12/13, Page 3
Begoña asked whether anyone has found anything in this course that is not covered in
Title 5. Jane stated that part of the Committee’s charter is to develop new courses and
programs. Tram read some of the standards for approval listed in Title 5.
Patricia Wu asked what our guidelines are for determining the amount of overlap
permissible if there is a fair amount of overlap but the approach is different. Wayne
replied that we don’t have a cutoff point. We decide on a case-by-case basis.
Wayne noted that while it is important to be cognizant of FTEF, our job is to evaluate the
curriculum. He has learned, however, that it is in our purview to suggest putting a course
in a different discipline than the one being proposed.
Homeira asked which courses Psychology-Counseling is considering to be overlapped.
She noticed similarities in content in PSCN 7, 10, 15, 20 and 21.
Jane asked what happens if there is so much overlap that minimum qualifications for
counseling come into play. Larry noted that when comparing the PSCN courses with the
proposed course, there are areas that are similar, but the new course has things that are
not in the PSCN courses. The rationale for the new course says that it helps students
find their majors earlier. Larry asked, “Because you have been presenting elements of the
new class in existing classes, will you still be reaching as many students if it is made into
a separate class?” The answer was “yes.”
On the subject of the course being “piloted” Jan stated that the three faculty who tested
concepts in their English classes did not put the content in their syllabi, but worked it
into the regular reading and writing assignments. Marcia added that English classes are
theme based. Jan said that this was not a school-sanctioned pilot subject to human
studies protocols. Sean stated that it was part of a faculty inquiry group. Jane called
including the class as a theme in a theme based English class and then calling it a success
a twist of logic.
Lynn asked how you measure success in a class. Patricia Shannon stated that all of our
courses should have an element of evaluation and continuous quality improvement.
Homeira asked if there was any discussion on how the outline was written, such as use of
the term “tribe.”
Mary said from a student’s perspective this is a great opportunity for students to help
them find what they want to do. She thinks overlap in classes helps students understand
things better.
Debbie questioned including the syllabus from the Cal class. She thinks it is set up like
it is a done deal. Sean replied that the Cal class is being proposed at Cal and inclusion of
collaboration with Chabot is meeting the Education Department’s criteria. Chabot’s
approval of this course should not hinge on what Cal is proposing.
Sean also asked how many new courses at Chabot are approved without being required
to be offered as experimental. He didn’t get a sense last week that the success of the
class was an issue. He heard about overlap and FTES. Patricia Shannon added that every
time we offer a new course it is “experimental.”
Curriculum Committee
11/12/13, Page 4
Jane: $46 is the amount of money that students would have to pay for this class. That is
a lot of money to ask students to pay for a class that only transfers as an elective. She
added that as written the course outline looks like an assignment, not a viable course. She
thinks we are subject to a marketing campaign, and asked “Where does this class fit? Is it
part of the ‘houses’ plan? How are students going to find it?” The Cal syllabus we were
given last week is part of a program called DeCAL, that allows students to propose and
teach classes. They are not allowed assign grades, and they have a division-based
instructor of record. The SSSP program being run through the Counseling division is
state-mandated. That is where we should be putting our money. She added that the
counselors are feeling disenfranchised over this proposal.
Patricia Shannon stated that there is no doubt that the new course is not a good fit within
a division. She thinks it is worth the developmental process to see if it works.
Jan said she has looked at the PSCN outlines, and she thinks there are parts of the
proposed course that are unique and are not offered anywhere else on campus. She said
the only reason we brought this in as an experimental is because we want to offer it in
spring. She added, “This is the least experimental class I have ever brought to the
committee.” Sean thinks $46 is a good deal in terms of what they are going to offer, and
Mary noted that any of the 2-unit PSCN classes would cost a student $92,.
Mireille asked whether a course can be proposed right now with a Spring 14 start date if
it is not experimental? Wayne replied not unless it is mandated by an outside agency. If
we do not approve GNST 5 in this curriculum cycle, we will not be able to offer it until
Fall 2015. He said that we can either consider both courses together or separately. The
proposing faculty have asked that we treat them together.
Jane asked if there is any approach that could be taken that would not cost the students
any money, such as a seminar or group. Why does it have to be a class?
At 3:50 Wayne called for a motion. He noted that there are some strong feelings from
counselors. Marcia said that there are some counselors and discipline instructors who
are interested in teaching or co-teaching this class. Wayne agreed that it could be team
taught.
Jan stated that registration started today. If approved, the information needs to go into
ClassWEB tonight.
Begoña said everyone here teaches because they want to make a change for the younger
generation. She has only heard positive things about this class.
Moved and Seconded (Cirera-Perez/Klein) that we approve both GNST 49xx and
GNST 5. Wayne handed out secret ballots and counted the vote. The motion carried:
5 yes, 4 no.
5.
Good of the Order
Wayne thanked everyone for their thoughts and participation in the discussion.
8.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM
Next meeting: November 19, 2013, in Room 507.
Note: We will not be meeting Thanksgiving week.
kk 11/20/13
c:\documents\word\curric\2013-14\11-12-13.min.docx